From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat |
Date: | 2010-05-16 03:19:27 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilgZLUvJ0MnSIZy1jSeCk0kF31fVNgnh5RcsrJH@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable to fix this now, and if so should I bump catversion
>>> or leave it alone? My own preference is to fix it in pg_proc.h but
>>> not touch catversion; but you could argue that different ways.
>
>> are you planning to backpatch this?
>
> I wasn't planning to; as you say, without field complaints it doesn't
> seem compelling to fix in existing releases.
>
ok, then is up to you if you think that it is worth an initdb in
beta... i still think is excessive...
btw, is it worth documenting that somewhere for older releases?
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-16 03:21:36 | Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-16 03:16:04 | Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat |