Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

On 4/21/14, 2:23 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Alfred,
>
> * Alfred Perlstein (alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org) wrote:
>> On 4/21/14, 12:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> Asking for help to address the FreeBSD performance would have
>>> been much better received. Thanks, Stephen
>> That is exactly what I did, I asked for a version of postgresql that
>> was easy to switch at runtime between two behaviors.
>>
>> That would make it a LOT easier to run a few scripts and make sure I
>> got the correct binary without having to munge PREFIX and a bunch of
>> PATH and other tools to get my test harness to DTRT.
> I'm sure one of the hackers would be happy to provide you with a patch
> to help you with your testing.
That would be fine.
> That's quite a different thing from asking for a GUC to be provided and
> then supported over the next 5 years as part of the core release, which
> is what I believe we all thought you were asking for.
I did not know that GUCs were not classified into
"experimental/non-experimental". The fact that a single GUC would need
to be supported for 5 years is definitely something to consider. Now I
understand the push back a little more.

-Alfred