| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-03 16:40:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYT39N65fxqoTuEnYdEdst-KDTC9RBm2nshQ2VMiMmshA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > but that might be fixed now.
>>
>> Certainly all evidence suggests that, FUD to the contrary.
>
> So it's now FUD to report issues with a patch that obviously hasn't
> received sufficient benchmarking? Give me break.
Yeah, I don't think that's FUD. Kevin, since your last fix, we don't
have a round of benchmarking on a big machine to show whether that
fixed the issue or not. I think that to really know whether this is
fixed, somebody would need to compare current master with current
master after reverting snapshot too old on a big machine and see if
there's a difference. If anyone has done that, they have not posted
the results. So it's more accurate to say that we just don't know.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-05-03 16:46:23 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-03 16:22:09 | Re: what to revert |