Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:14:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan  wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Robert Haas  wrote:
> >> I think that's a good question.  I previously expressed similar
> >> concerns.  On the one hand, it's hard to ignore the fact that, in the
> >> cases where this wins, it already buys us a lot of performance
> >> improvement.  On the other hand, as you say (and as I said), it eats
> >> up a lot of bits, and that limits what we can do in the future.  On
> >> the one hand, there is a saying that a bird in the hand is worth two
> >> in the bush.  On the other hand, there is also a saying that one
> >> should not paint oneself into the corner.
> >
> > Are we really saying that there can be no incompatible change to the
> > on-disk representation for the rest of eternity? I can see why that's
> > something to avoid indefinitely, but I wouldn't like to rule it out.
> 
> Well, I don't want to rule it out either, but if we do a release to
> which you can't pg_upgrade, it's going to be really painful for a lot
> of users.  Many users can't realistically upgrade using pg_dump, ever.
> So they'll be stuck on the release before the one that breaks
> compatibility for a very long time.

Right.  If we weren't setting tuple and tid bits we could imrpove it
easily in PG 11, but if we use them for a single-change WARM chain for
PG 10, we might need bits that are not available to improve it later.

--  Bruce Momjian          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 +