On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 09:39:29AM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>At Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:03:33 +0200, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<20190409150333.5iashyjxm5jmraml@development>
>> Unfortunately, now that we're past code freeze it's clear this is a
>> PG12
>> matter now :-(
>>
>> I personally consider this to be very worthwhile & beneficial
>> improvement,
>> but I agree with Andres the patch did not quite get to committable
>> state
>> in the last CF. Conidering how sensitive part it touches, I suggest we
>> try
>> to get it committed early in the PG13 cycle. I'm willing to spend some
>> time on doing test/benchmarks and reviewing the code, if needed.
>
>I'm very happy to be told that. Actually the code was a rush work
>(mainly for reverting refactoring) and left some stupid
>mistakes. I'm going through on the patch again and polish code.
>
While reviewing the patch I've always had issue with evaluating how it
behaves for various scenarios / workloads. The reviews generally did one
specific benchmark, but I find that unsatisfactory. I wonder whether if
we could develop a small set of more comprehensive workloads for this
patch (i.e. different numbers of objects, access patterns, ...).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services