From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
Date: | 2021-05-13 02:12:43 |
Message-ID: | YJyLG17duGv7dRAE@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:46:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 5/11/21 2:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Yes, reverting has its place. Moreover, threats of reversion have their
>> place. People should definitely be working towards finding solutions to
>> the problems in their commits lest they be reverted. However, freezing
>> *people* by saying that no fixes are acceptable other than reverts ...
>> is not good.
Well, that's an option on the table and a possibility, so I am listing
it as a possible exit path as a potential solution, as much as a
different optimization is another exit path to take care of this item
:)
>> So I agree with what Andres is saying downthread: let's apply the fix he
>> proposed (it's not even that invasive anyway), and investigate the
>> remaining 5% and see if we can find a solution. If by the end of the
>> beta process we can definitely find no solution to the problem, we can
>> revert the whole lot then.
>
> I agree with all of this. Right now I'm only concerned if there isn't
> work apparently being done on some issue.
If that's the consensus reached, that's fine by me as long as we don't
keep a 25% performance regression. Now, looking at the patch
proposed, I have to admit that this looks like some redesign of an
existing feature, so that stresses me a bit in a period when we are
aiming at making things stable, because this has a risk of making a
part of the code more unstable. And I've had my share of calls over
the last years in such situations, not only with Postgres, FWIW, so I
may just sound like a conservative guy with a conservative hat.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-05-13 02:15:40 | Re: Always bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-05-13 02:04:54 | Re: Always bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION? |