Hi,
On 2025-02-24 15:45:10 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I suspect that this is a *really* bad idea. It's very very hard to get
> > inplace
> > updates right. We have several unfixed correctness bugs that are related to
> > the use of inplace updates. I really don't think it's wise to add
> > additional
> > interfaces that can reach inplace updates unless there's really no other
> > alternative (like not being able to assign an xid in VACUUM to be able to
> > deal
> > with anti-xid-wraparound-shutdown systems).
>
>
> In this case, the alternative is an immediate doubling of the size of
> pg_class right after a restore/upgrade.
I don't think that's necessarily true, hot pruning might help some, as afaict
the restore happens in multiple transactions.
But even if that's the case, I don't think it's worth using in place updates
to avoid it. We should work to get rid of them, not introduce them in more
places.
And typically pg_class size isn't the relevant factor, it's pg_attribute etc.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
