On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I think we should either get this fixed RSN or revert the problematic >> commit until we get it fixed. I'd be rather disappointed about the >> latter because I think this was a very good thing on the merits, but >> probably not good enough to justify taking the performance hit over >> the long term. > > Since it's only in HEAD, I'm not seeing the urgency of reverting it. > However, it'd be a good idea to put this on the 9.6 open items list > (have we got such a page yet?) to make sure it gets addressed before > beta.
One problem is that it makes for misleading results if you try to benchmark 9.5 against 9.6. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers