\On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/17 6:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:40:55PM +0200, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2017 04:38 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>> On 1 May 2017 at 22:26, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I see some alternatives, none of them perfect.
>>> 1. Just remove the optimization fence and let people add OFFSET 0 to
>>> their
>>> queries if they want an optimization fence. This lets us keep pretending
>>> that we do not have query hints (and therefore do not have to formalize
>>> any
>>> syntax for them) while still allowing people to add optimization fences.
>> +1
>> I get that people with gigantic PostgreSQL installations with
>> stringent performance requirements sometimes need to do odd things to
>> squeeze out the last few percentage points of performance.  As the
>> people (well, at least the people close to the ground) at these
>> organizations are fully aware, performance optimizations are extremely
>> volatile with respect to new versions of software, whether it's
>> PostgreSQL, Oracle, the Linux kernel, or what have you.  They expect
>> this, and they have processes in place to handle it.  If they don't,
>> it's pilot error.
>> We should not be penalizing all our other users to maintain the
>> fiction that people can treat performance optimizations as a "fire and
>> forget" matter.
> Agreed.
>>> 2. Add a decorator for WITH (e.g. "WITH MATERIALIZED x (...") to add an
>>> explicit optimization fence. This will for the first time add official
>>> support for a query hint in the syntax which is a quite big precedent.
>> Yep.  It's one we should think very carefully before we introduce.
> I think it's a mistake to see this as an introduction of query hits.
> Firstly, it's a question whether it qualifies as a hint. I wouldn't call it
> a hint, but let's assume there is a definition of query hints that includes
> More importantly, however, this is not introducing anything new. It's just a
> different name for the current "WITH" semantics, and you can achieve the
> same behavior by "OFFSET 0". And people are already using these as hints, so
> I fail to see how this introduces anything new.
> In fact, if you see the optimization fence as an implicit query hint, this
> actually *removes* a hint (although most users are unaware of that behavior
> and use it unintentionally).

+1 down the line.  More to the point, for several years now we've (or
at least I, but I'm not the only one) have been advocating for the
usage of CTE to avoid the undocumented and bizarre OFFSET 0 trick.
Jerking this out from users without giving a simple mechanic to get
the same behavior minus a major query rewrite is blatantly user
hostile.  I can't believe we're even contemplating it.   Also a GUC is
not a solution for pretty obvious reasons I think.


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

Reply via email to