On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 03:19:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > I agree with Stephen's request. We have been waiting for the executor > > rewrite for a while, so let's just do something simple and see how it > > performs. > > I'm sympathetic to the frustration here, and I think it would be great > if we could find a way forward that doesn't involve waiting for a full > rewrite of the executor. However, I seem to remember that when we > tested the various patches that various people had written for this > feature (I wrote one, too) they all had a noticeable performance > penalty in the case of a plain old Append that involved no FDWs and > nothing asynchronous. I don't think it's OK to have, say, a 2% > regression on every query that involves an Append, because especially > now that we have partitioning, that's a lot of queries. > > I don't know whether this patch has that kind of problem. If it > doesn't, I would consider that a promising sign.
Certainly any overhead on normal queries would be unacceptable. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
