From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:03:47 +0100
Message-ID: <20140211190347.GL15246@awork2.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140211184146.GG2289@momjian.us>
References: <CA+TgmoZQyt253OA_ssD6OVs8o0-RkRz3eK6qZz3Utwp-2QVf6A@mail.gmail.com>
<20140201032207.GD31141@momjian.us>
<CA+TgmoYOAzNKWKdkNcq50MFQKdgSt1ESR6zxb8XKCiNO6YBX2A@mail.gmail.com>
<20140211155607.GB2289@momjian.us>
<CA+TgmobeczQK0LhgVz_bSs7M4iTbCP=sfK8=6yDuCpwtOiuCCw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140211171213.GE2289@momjian.us>
<20140211175410.GF31598@awork2.anarazel.de>
<20140211182319.GF2289@momjian.us>
<20140211183103.GJ15246@awork2.anarazel.de>
<20140211184146.GG2289@momjian.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2014-02-11 13:41:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Wait longer for what? Anti-xid-wraparound vacuum?
Yes.
> Is using VACUUM for these cases documented? Should it be?
No idea, it seems to be part of at least part of the folkloric
knowledge, from what I see at clients.
> > I am not saying it shouldn't be improved, I just don't see the point of
> > bringing it up while everyone is busy with the last CF and claiming it
> > is unusable and that stating that it is surprisising that nobody really
> > cares.
> Well, I brought it up in September too. My point was not that it is a
> new issue but that it has been such an ignored issue for two years. I
> am not asking for a fix, but right now we don't even have a plan on how
> to improve this.
Coming up with a plan for this takes time and discussion, not something
we seem to have aplenty of atm. And even if were to agree on a plan
right now, we wouldn't incorporate it into 9.4, so what's the point of
bringing it up now?
> I still don't see how this is FUD, and you have not explained it to me.
> This is a known limitation for two years, not documented (?), and with
> no TODO item and no plan on how to improve it. Do you want to declare
> such cases FUD and just ignore them? I don't see how that moves us
> forward.
Claiming something doesn't work while it just has manageable usability
issues doesn't strike me as a reasonable starting point. If it bugs
somebody enough to come up with a rough proposal it will get fixed...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, jim@nasby.net, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, peter@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@dunslane.net, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
In-Reply-To: <20140211190347.GL15246@awork2.anarazel.de>
* 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