Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState?

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState?
Date: 2020-09-19 13:32:15
Message-ID: 20200919133215.GB30557@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 08:57:00PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:30:47AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2020-05-08 02:25:45 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Seems to me it should, at least conditionally. At least if there's a function
> > > scan or a relation or ..
> >
> > Well, the problem is that this can cause very very significant
> > regressions. As in 10x slower or more. The ringbuffer can cause constant
> > XLogFlush() calls (due to the lsn interlock), and the eviction from
> > shared_buffers (regardless of actual available) will mean future vacuums
> > etc will be much slower. I think this is likely to cause pretty
> > widespread regressions on upgrades.
> >
> > Now, it sucks that we have this problem in the general facility that's
> > supposed to be used for this kind of bulk operation. But I don't really
> > see it realistic as expanding use of bulk insert strategies unless we
> > have some more fundamental fixes.
>
> I made this conditional on BEGIN BULK/SET bulk, so I'll solicit comments on that.

@cfbot: rebased

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Allow-INSERT-SELECT-to-use-a-BulkInsertState.patch text/x-diff 7.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-09-19 14:43:54 Re: XversionUpgrade tests broken by postfix operator removal
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-09-19 12:28:14 Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."