Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:36:13PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Thank you all for the  reviews, feedback, tests, criticism. And apologies for
> keep pushing it till the last minute even though it was clear to me quite some
> time back the patch is not going to make it. But if I'd given up, it would have
> never received whatever little attention it got. The only thing that
> disappoints me is that the patch was held back on no strong technical grounds -
>  at least none were clear to me. There were concerns about on-disk changes etc,
> but most on-disk changes were known for 7 months now. Reminds me of HOT
> development, when it would not receive adequate feedback for quite many months,
> probably for very similar reasons - complex patch, changes on-disk format,
> risky, even though performance gains were quite substantial. I was much more
> hopeful this time because we have many more experts now as compared to then,
> but we probably have equally more amount of complex patches to review/commit.

I am sad to see WARM didn't make it into Postgres 10, but I agree
deferment was the right decision, as painful as that is. We now have
something to look forward to in Postgres 11. :-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +