On 5/15/24 23:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-05-15 10:38:20 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I disagree with this. IMO the impact of the Sawada/Naylor change is
>> likely to be enormous for people with large tables and large numbers of
>> tuples to clean up (I know we've had a number of customers in this
>> situation, I can't imagine any Postgres service provider that doesn't).
>> The fact that maintenance_work_mem is no longer capped at 1GB is very
>> important and I think we should mention that explicitly in the release
>> notes, as setting it higher could make a big difference in vacuum run
>> times.
>
> +many.
>
> We're having this debate every release. I think the ongoing reticence to note
> performance improvements in the release notes is hurting Postgres.
>
> For one, performance improvements are one of the prime reason users
> upgrade. Without them being noted anywhere more dense than the commit log,
> it's very hard to figure out what improved for users. A halfway widely
> applicable performance improvement is far more impactful than many of the
> feature changes we do list in the release notes.
many++
> For another, it's also very frustrating for developers that focus on
> performance. The reticence to note their work, while noting other, far
> smaller, things in the release notes, pretty much tells us that our work isn't
> valued.
agreed
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
