Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> * Checkpointer process split broke fsync'ing >> ** bug is fixed, but now we had better recheck earlier performance claims >> >> Is anyone actually going to do any performance testing on this?
> I am unlikely to have time between now and release. Me either, and I didn't hear any other volunteers. Even if testing showed that there was some performance regression, I doubt that we would either revert the checkpointer process split or hold up the release to look for another solution. So realistically this is not a blocker issue. I'll move it to the "not blockers" section. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers