OK, removed from open item list.


Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've applied this but I'm now having some second thoughts about it,
> >> because I'm seeing an actual *decrease* in pgbench numbers from the
> >> immediately prior CVS HEAD code.
> > The attached patch requires the new row to fit, and 10% to be free on
> > the page.  Would someone test that?
> At the moment, I cannot replicate any consistent difference between
> CVS head with the patch, without the patch, with the patch plus your
> BLCKSZ/10 limit addition, or with a variant BLCKSZ/32 limit addition.
> That's whether I use HEAD's broken version of pgbench or one from late
> July.  So I'm feeling a tad frustrated ... but I have no evidence in
> favor of changing what is in CVS, and accordingly recommend that we
> leave well enough alone for 8.2.
>                       regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to