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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to