On 7/13/22 17:32, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-07-13 09:23:00 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 7/13/22 12:13 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 17:15, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So far only Robert has raised concerns with this regression for PG15
>>>> (see [2]). Tom voted for leaving things as they are for PG15 in [3].
>>>> John agrees, as quoted above. Does anyone else have any opinion?
>>>
>>> Let me handle this slightly differently. I've moved the open item for
>>> this into the "won't fix" section. If nobody shouts at me for that
>>> then I'll let that end the debate. Otherwise, we can consider the
>>> argument when it arrives.
>>
>> The RMT discussed this issue at its meeting today (and a few weeks back --
>> apologies for not writing sooner). While we agree with your analysis that 1/
>> this issue does appear to be a corner case and 2/ the benefits outweigh the
>> risks, we still don't know how prevalent it may be in the wild and the
>> general impact to user experience.
>>
>> The RMT suggests that you make one more pass at attempting to solve it.
>
> I think without a more concrete analysis from the RMT that's not really
> actionable. What risks are we willing to accept to resolve this? This is
> mostly a question of tradeoffs.
>
> Several "senior" postgres hackers looked at this and didn't find any solution
> that makes sense to apply to 15. I don't think having David butt his head
> further against this code is likely to achieve much besides a headache. Note
> that David already has a patch to address this for 16.
>
I agree with this. It's not clear to me how we'd asses how prevalent it
really is (reports on a mailing list surely are not a very great way to
measure this). My personal opinion is that it's a rare regression. Other
optimization patches have similar rare regressions, except that David
spent so much time investigating this one it seems more serious.
I think it's fine to leave this as is. If we feel we have to fix this
for v15, it's probably best to just apply the v16. I doubt we'll find
anything simpler.
>
>> If there does not appear to be a clear path forward, we should at least
>> document how a user can detect and resolve the issue.
>
> To me that doesn't really make sense. We have lots of places were performance
> changes once you cross some threshold, and lots of those are related to
> work_mem.
>
> We don't, e.g., provide tooling to detect when performance in aggregation
> regresses due to crossing work_mem and could be fixed by a tiny increase in
> work_mem.
>
Yeah. I find it entirely reasonable to tell people to increase work_mem
a bit to fix this. The problem is knowing you're affected :-(
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company