Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size?
Date: 2021-05-27 18:21:00
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaKyNXRKq4TxBXA=8vmiJAwwyxkFoLJWYN_TMKzPMpmBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What I'm hearing is a whole lot of hypothesizing and zero evidence of
> actual field requirements. On the other side of the coin, we've already
> wasted significant person-hours on fixing this feature's memory leakage,
> and now people are proposing to expend more effort on solving^Wpapering
> over its performance issues by adding yet more user-visible complication.
> It's already adding too much user-visible complication IMO --- I know
> because I was just copy-editing the documentation about that yesterday.
>
> I say it's time to stop the bleeding and rip it out. When and if
> there are actual field requests to have a way to do this, we can
> discuss what's the best way to respond to those requests. Hacking
> VACUUM probably isn't the best answer, anyway. But right now,
> we are past feature freeze, and I think we ought to jettison this
> one rather than quickly kluge something.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. -1 from me.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-05-27 18:43:52 Re: storing an explicit nonce
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-05-27 18:19:15 Re: storing an explicit nonce