Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Palle Girgensohn <girgen(at)freebsd(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Francois Tigeot <ftigeot(at)wolfpond(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Date: 2014-04-21 15:49:01
Message-ID: 20140421154901.GF14024@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2014-04-21 11:45:49 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> That seems to make more sense. I can't imagine why this would be a runtime
> parameter as opposed to build time.

Because that implies that packagers and porters need to make that
decision. If it's a GUC people can benchmark it and decide.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-04-21 15:58:10 Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-04-21 15:45:49 Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD