On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:51:34PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jun-06, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 05:19:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Is this patch the only thing missing before this open item can be
> considered closed?
I've already pushed this as 4cad2534da6d17067d98cf04be2dfc1bda8f2cd0,
sorry for not mentioning it in this thread explicitly.
That's great to know, thanks. The other bit necessary to answer my
question is whether do we need to do anything else in this area -- if
no, then we can mark the open item as closed:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_13_Open_Items#Open_Issues
Hmmm, good question.
There was some discussion about maybe tweaking the costing model to make
it a bit more pessimistic (assuming more random I/O or something like
that), but I'm not sure it's still needed. Increasing random_page_cost
for the temp tablespace did the trick for me.
So I'd say we can mark it as closed ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
