From: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 15:50:36 -0400
Message-ID: <db18638e-f98b-b39e-e27f-75f8b2d6dfe1@postgresql.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220809192257.yanxb6cazo2tjkkh@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <CA+HiwqEp=vF=0=tUPYz2N3OOp+19CgCrNBgLUUK7SWec_YZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20220802003947.x2ezq7u7pkmxt6ie@awork3.anarazel.de>
<CA+HiwqHU+wWGNjzk=5eV15Nth3jySbQeeUFnVfbZ1F3M6QUjDA@mail.gmail.com>
<20220802150022.jqomxwum5eazybfv@awork3.anarazel.de>
<CA+HiwqEe3n-v86zy4gL2g+BWZDxwEtVeGX8YuOqRh8y7R8QPPw@mail.gmail.com>
<20220805203656.mdgmajvsahi5srcy@awork3.anarazel.de>
<787cef45-15de-8f1d-ed58-a1c1435bfc0e@postgresql.org>
<32d4a1e4-d218-b129-205e-e123ebaef6b8@dunslane.net>
<4b02e8a0-2541-a739-d1e7-6cdd29239b24@postgresql.org>
<35778.1660072664@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220809192257.yanxb6cazo2tjkkh@awork3.anarazel.de>
On 8/9/22 3:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-08-09 15:17:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We have delayed releases for $COOL_FEATURE in the past, and I think
>> our batting average on that is still .000: not once has it worked out
>> well.
>
> I think it semi worked when jsonb (?) first went in - it took a while and a
> lot of effort from a lot of people, but in the end we made it work, and it was
> a success from our user's perspectives, I think.
Yeah, this was the example I was thinking of. To continue with the
baseball analogy, it was a home-run from a PR perspective, and I can say
as a power user at the time, the 9.4 JSONB representation worked well
for my use case. Certainly newer functionality has made JSON easier to
work with in PG.
(I can't remember what the 9.5 hold up was).
The cases where we either delayed/punted on $COOL_FEATURE that cause me
concern are the ones where we say "OK, well fix this in the next
release" and we are then waiting, 2, 3, 4 releases for the work to be
completed. And to be clear, I'm thinking of this as "known issues" vs.
"iterating towards the whole solution".
> OTOH, it's not a great sign this is around json again...
Yeah, I was thinking about that too.
Per Andres comment upthread, let's open a new thread to discuss the
SQL/JSON + v15 topic to improve visibility and get more feedback. I can
do that shortly.
We can continue with the technical discussion in here.
Jonathan
Attachments:
OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, 839B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: jkatz@postgresql.org, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@dunslane.net, amitlangote09@gmail.com, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, michael@paquier.xyz, john.naylor@enterprisedb.com, pg@bowt.ie, n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
In-Reply-To: <db18638e-f98b-b39e-e27f-75f8b2d6dfe1@postgresql.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox