On 2 January 2017 at 10:13, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-01-02 11:05:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> My claim here is that a lot *fewer* people have come to expect this >> performance optimization, than would (quite reasonably) expect that backups >> should work on a system without taking it down for restart to reconfigure >> it to support that. > > +1 > > As evidenced by the fact that a large fraction of those optimizations > are actually currently entirely broken. Without anybody noticing for > years: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20150702220524.GA9392%40svana.org
No, the optimization works, but there is a bug in it that makes it unsafe, not the same thing as entirely broken. That clearly needs to be fixed, but it does not prevent the performance benefit, so that argument is invalid. We must listen to feedback, not just try to blast through it. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
