| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Make TID Scans recalculate the TIDs less often |
| Date: | 2025-09-17 06:28:57 |
| Message-ID: | 10FD69B7-B572-42CD-A571-FD502E74FA1A@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 17 Sep 2025, at 09:59, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone think this is worth pursuing further?
I heard of following use-case: data transferring system partition big tables by ctid ranges to mimic parallel secscan, but with many network connections. Some performance improvement was claimed and connection failure resistance (when one connection was broken only one partition is rescanned with same snapshot).
I'm not entirely sure this is a safe approach (I have a gut feeling that tid scan is not MVCC safe). But for retrieving very big tables without strong guarantees this might make some sense.
Would your patch improve performance of such case?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shubham Khanna | 2025-09-17 06:46:35 | Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2025-09-17 06:28:53 | Re: Parallel Apply |