Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
Date: 2017-01-31 22:24:17
Message-ID: 20170131222416.GS9812@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Hm, sorry for missing this earlier. I think CatalogUpdateIndexes() is
> > fairly widely used in extensions - it seems like a pretty harsh change
> > to not leave some backward compatibility layer in place.
>
> If an extension is doing that, it is probably constructing tuples to put
> into the catalog, which means it'd be equally (and much more quietly)
> broken by any change to the catalog's schema. We've never considered
> such an argument as a reason not to change catalog schemas, though.
>
> In short, I've got mighty little sympathy for that argument.

+1

> (I'm a little more concerned by Alvaro's apparent position that WARM
> is a done deal; I didn't think so. This particular change seems like
> good cleanup anyhow, however.)

Agreed.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-31 22:24:18 Re: Should `pg_upgrade --check` check relation filenodes are present?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-01-31 22:22:49 Re: Parallel Index Scans