On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 07:21:21AM -0700, Andres Freund 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.
I also strongly question whether we should revert this feature and try again in 9.7. -- 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 + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
