On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 00:20, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 06:17:42PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > I have serious doubts about the viability of any proposal working to
> > implement PHOT/WARM in PostgreSQL, as they seem to have an inherent
> > nature of fundamentally breaking the TID lifecycle:
> > [... concerns]
>
> I share your concerns, but I don't think things are as dire as you suggest.
> For example, perhaps we put a limit on how long a PHOT chain can be, or
> maybe we try to detect update patterns that don't work well with PHOT.
> Another option could be to limit PHOT updates to only when the same set of
> indexed columns are updated or when <50% of the indexed columns are
> updated. These aren't fully fleshed-out ideas, of course, but I am at
> least somewhat optimistic we could find appropriate trade-offs.
Yes, there are methods which could limit the overhead. But I'm not
sure there are cheap-enough designs which would make PHOT a
universally good choice (i.e. not tunable with guc/table option),
considering its significantly larger un-reclaimable storage overhead
vs HOT.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent.
