On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 4:49 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 4:30 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > Put differently, I can't see any reason to care whether pruning > > > emitted an FPI or not. Either way, it's very unlikely that freezing > > > needs to do so. > > > > +many > > > > Using FPIs having been generated during pruning as part of the logic to > > decide > > whether to freeze makes no sense to me. We likely need some heuristic here, > > but I suspect it has to look quite different than the FPI condition. > > I think that it depends on how you frame it. It makes zero sense that > that's the only thing that can do something like this at all. It makes > some sense as an incremental improvement, since there is no way that > we can lose by too much, even if you make arbitrarily pessimistic > assumptions. In other words, you won't be able to come up with an > adversarial benchmark where this loses by too much.
When you were working on this, what were the downsides of only having the criteria that 1) page would be all_visible/all_frozen and 2) we did prune something (i.e. no consideration of FPIs)? > As I said, I'm no longer interested in working on VACUUM (though I do > hope that Melanie or somebody else picks up where I left off). I have > nothing to say about any new work in this area. If you want me to do > something in the scope of the work on 16, as a release management > task, please be clear about what that is. I'm only talking about this in the context of future work for 17. - Melanie
