On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-05-02 09:03:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Now to continue with the performance benchmarks. I'm pretty sure >> > we've fixed the problems when the feature is disabled >> > (old_snapshot_threshold = -1), and there are several suggestions >> > for improving performance while it is on that need to be compared >> > and benchmarked. >> >> If anyone thinks that the issue with the feature disabled is NOT >> fixed, please speak up! I'm moving the corresponding open item to >> CLOSE_WAIT status, meaning that it will be closed if nobody shows up >> to say that there is still an issue. > > Well, I don't agree that the feature is in a releaseable state. The > datastructure is pretty much non-scalable, and maintained on the wrong > side (every read, instead of once in writing writing xacts). There's no > proposal actually addressing the scalability issues.
You are certainly welcome to add a new open item to cover those complaints. But I do not want to blur together the discussion of whether the feature is well-designed with the question of whether it regresses performance when it is turned off. Those are severable issues, meriting separate discussion (and probably separate threads). -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
