On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 6:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@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