Hi, On 2025-02-24 15:45:10 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote: > > > > > > > > I suspect that this is a *really* bad idea. It's very very hard to get > > inplace > > updates right. We have several unfixed correctness bugs that are related to > > the use of inplace updates. I really don't think it's wise to add > > additional > > interfaces that can reach inplace updates unless there's really no other > > alternative (like not being able to assign an xid in VACUUM to be able to > > deal > > with anti-xid-wraparound-shutdown systems). > > > In this case, the alternative is an immediate doubling of the size of > pg_class right after a restore/upgrade.
I don't think that's necessarily true, hot pruning might help some, as afaict the restore happens in multiple transactions. But even if that's the case, I don't think it's worth using in place updates to avoid it. We should work to get rid of them, not introduce them in more places. And typically pg_class size isn't the relevant factor, it's pg_attribute etc. Greetings, Andres Freund
