Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jonathan S. Katz
Subject Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date
Msg-id db18638e-f98b-b39e-e27f-75f8b2d6dfe1@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
List pgsql-hackers
On 8/9/22 3:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-08-09 15:17:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We have delayed releases for $COOL_FEATURE in the past, and I think
>> our batting average on that is still .000: not once has it worked out
>> well.
> 
> I think it semi worked when jsonb (?) first went in - it took a while and a
> lot of effort from a lot of people, but in the end we made it work, and it was
> a success from our user's perspectives, I think. 

Yeah, this was the example I was thinking of. To continue with the 
baseball analogy, it was a home-run from a PR perspective, and I can say 
as a power user at the time, the 9.4 JSONB representation worked well 
for my use case. Certainly newer functionality has made JSON easier to 
work with in PG.

(I can't remember what the 9.5 hold up was).

The cases where we either delayed/punted on $COOL_FEATURE that cause me 
concern are the ones where we say "OK, well fix this in the next 
release" and we are then waiting, 2, 3, 4 releases for the work to be 
completed. And to be clear, I'm thinking of this as "known issues" vs. 
"iterating towards the whole solution".

> OTOH, it's not a great sign  this is around json again...

Yeah, I was thinking about that too.

Per Andres comment upthread, let's open a new thread to discuss the 
SQL/JSON + v15 topic to improve visibility and get more feedback. I can 
do that shortly.

We can continue with the technical discussion in here.

Jonathan

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types
Next
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size