On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 07:15:59PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 3/10/17 14:40, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > I'd really like to get it in.  The performance improvements on its own
>> > are significant, and it provides the basis for significantly larger
>> > improvements again (JIT) - those followup improvements are large patches
>> > again though, so I'd rather not do all of that next cycle.
>> >
>> > My next step (over the weekend) is to add tests to execQual.c to get it
>> > a good chunk closer to 100% test coverage, and then do the same for the
>> > new implementation (there's probably very little additional tests needed
>> > after the conversion).  Given all tests pass before/after, and there's a
>> > lot of them, I think we can have a reasonable confidence of a low bug
>> > density.
>> That seems like a plan, but now would probably be a good time for some
>> other hackers to take note of this proposal.
> Well, the executor is long overdue for improvement, so I would love to
> have this in 10.0.  I am not sure what additional polishing will happen
> if we punt it for 11.0.  I think the only downside of having it in 10.0
> is that it will not have lived in the source tree for as long a time
> between commit and PG release, but if it is tested, that seems fine.

Yeah.  I think we can't rule out the possibility that this patch is
full of bugs, but (1) a lot of the change is pretty mechanical and (2)
none of this touches the on-disk format or the catalog contents, so it
doesn't break anybody's existing install if we have to patch it.  On
the other hand, (3) it's a big patch and (4) if expression evaluation
doesn't work, PostgreSQL is pretty much unusable.

So my feeling is:

1. If Andres commits this and it turns out to be seriously buggy, he
should be prepared to revert it without a big fight.  We can try again
for v11.

2. If Andres commits this and it turns out to be mildly buggy, he
should be prepared to address bugs very proactively and very promptly.

3. If Andres wants to commit this for v10, it should be done RSN.
Feature freeze isn't technically until the end of March, but giant
potentialy-destabilizing patches that land on March 31st are likely to
lead to outcomes that nobody wants.

Like, I think, everyone else, I'd really like to have these speedups
and I think they will benefit everyone who uses PostgreSQL.  However,
I think that we cannot afford to have a repeat of the simplehash thing
where serious bugs sat around for months without really getting
properly addressed.  If that happens with this, I will be extremely
unhappy, and I'm fairly sure I won't be alone.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to