On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:51 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Hmm, I don't have any memory of introducing this; and if you look at the > thread, you'll notice that it got there between the first patch I posted > and the second one, without any mention of the reason. I probably got > that code from the WARM patch series at some point, thinking that it was > an obvious optimization; but I'm fairly certain that we didn't run any > tailored micro-benchmark to justify it.
I suspected that it was something like that. I agree that it's unlikely that we'll be able to do another HOT update for as long as the page has PD_PAGE_FULL set. But that's not saying much; it's also unlikely that heap_update will find that PD_PAGE_FULL is set to begin with. And, the chances of successfully applying HOT again are workload dependent. > I certainly do not object to removing it. I'd like to do so soon. I'll wait a few more days, in case Pavan objects. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan