On 2016-02-11 13:09:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> One problem is that it makes for misleading results if you try to > >> benchmark 9.5 against 9.6. > > > > You need a really beefy box to show the problem. On a large/new 2 socket > > machine the performance regression in in the 1-3% range for a pgbench of > > SELECT 1. So it's not like it's immediately showing up for everyone. > > > > Putting it on the open items list sounds good to me. > > Well, OK, I've done that then. I don't really agree that it's not a > problem; the OP said he saw a 3x regression, and some of my colleagues > doing benchmarking are complaining about this commit, too. It doesn't > seem like much of a stretch to think that it might be affecting other > people as well.
Well, I can't do anything about that right now. I won't have the time to whip up the new/more complex API we discussed upthread in the next few days. So either we go with a simpler API (e.g. pretty much a cleaned up version of my earlier patch), revert the postmaster deatch check, or somebody else has to take lead in renovating, or we wait... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers