Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState?
Date
Msg-id 20200919133215.GB30557@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState?  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState?  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 08:57:00PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:30:47AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2020-05-08 02:25:45 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Seems to me it should, at least conditionally.  At least if there's a function
> > > scan or a relation or ..
> > 
> > Well, the problem is that this can cause very very significant
> > regressions. As in 10x slower or more. The ringbuffer can cause constant
> > XLogFlush() calls (due to the lsn interlock), and the eviction from
> > shared_buffers (regardless of actual available) will mean future vacuums
> > etc will be much slower.  I think this is likely to cause pretty
> > widespread regressions on upgrades.
> > 
> > Now, it sucks that we have this problem in the general facility that's
> > supposed to be used for this kind of bulk operation. But I don't really
> > see it realistic as expanding use of bulk insert strategies unless we
> > have some more fundamental fixes.
> 
> I made this conditional on BEGIN BULK/SET bulk, so I'll solicit comments on that.

@cfbot: rebased

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: XversionUpgrade tests broken by postfix operator removal