On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 7:41 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Both Andres and I have repeatedly expressed concern about how much is > > being changed in the behavior of vacuum, and how quickly, and IMHO on > > the basis of very limited evidence that the changes are improvements. > > The fact that Andres was very quickly able to find cases where the > > patch produces large regression is just more evidence of that. It's > > also hard to even understand what has been changed, because the > > descriptions are so theoretical. > > Did you actually read the motivating examples Wiki page?
I don't know. I've read a lot of stuff that you've written on this topic, which has taken a significant amount of time, and I still don't understand a lot of what you're changing, and I don't agree with all of the things that I do understand. I can't state with confidence that the motivating examples wiki page was or was not among the things that I read. But, you know, when people start running PostgreSQL 16, and have some problem, they're not going to read the motivating examples wiki page. They're going to read the documentation. If they can't find the answer there, they (or some hacker that they contact) will probably read the code comments and the relevant commit messages. Those either clearly explain what was changed in a way that somebody can understand, or they don't. If they don't, *the commits are not good enough*, regardless of what other information may exist in any other place. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
