| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
| Date: | 2022-11-21 22:48:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa4WoKeXHW+=JEQ1XzzOCd-Bwe-wkZoVYN2qPD-kN+skg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think we should content ourselves with improving the demonstrated
> case, which is where we're forced to do a lot of heap fetches due
> to lots of not-all-visible tuples. Whether we can spend a lot of
> time scanning the index without ever finding a tuple at all seems
> hypothetical. Without more evidence of a real problem, I do not
> wish to inject warts as horrid as this one into the index AM API.
All right. I've been bitten by this problem enough that I'm a little
gun-shy about accepting anything that doesn't feel like a 100%
solution, but I admit that the scenario I described does seem a little
bit far-fetched.
I won't be completely shocked if somebody finds a way to hit it, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2022-11-21 23:10:29 | Re: More efficient build farm animal wakeup? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-21 22:45:42 | Re: CI and test improvements |