On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 6:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of the key strengths of systems like Postgres is the ability to
> > inexpensively store a relatively large amount of data that has just
> > about zero chance of being read, let alone modified. While at the same
> > time having decent OLTP performance for the hot data. Not nearly as
> > good as an in-memory system, mind you -- and yet in-memory systems
> > remain largely a niche thing.
>
> I think it's interesting that TPC-C suffers from the kind of problem
> that your patch was intended to address. I hadn't considered that. But
> I do not think it detracts from the basic point I was making, which is
> that you need to think about the downsides of your patch, not just the
> upsides.
>
> If you want to argue that there is *no* OLTP workload that will be
> harmed by freezing as aggressively as possible, then that would be a
> good argument in favor of your patch, because it would be arguing that
> the downside simply doesn't exist, at least for OLTP workloads. The
> fact that you can think of *one particular* OLTP workload that can
> benefit from the patch is just doubling down on the "my patch has an
> upside" argument, which literally no one is disputing.
You've treated me to another multi paragraph talking down, as if I was
still clinging to my original position, which is of course not the
case. I've literally said I'm done with VACUUM for good, and that I
just want to put a line under this. Yet you still persist in doing
this sort of thing. I'm not fighting you, I'm not fighting Andres.
I was making a point about the need to do something in this area in
general. That's all.
--
Peter Geoghegan