| From: | Dmitry Shalashov <skaurus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade |
| Date: | 2017-11-25 15:39:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAKPeCUFLhurRO9Se3b02NZfQ1fk5c7y-Dua_u5-FgO-jDnab8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> The author is also working on Postgres for 20 years,
> so this gives some insurance.
I know. Tom is a legend. But still I'd like to hear from him to be sure :)
Dmitry Shalashov, relap.io & surfingbird.ru
2017-11-25 15:13 GMT+03:00 Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Dmitry Shalashov <skaurus(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Is it completely safe to use manually patched version in production?
>
> Patching upstream PostgreSQL to fix a critical bug is something that
> can of course be done. And to reach a state where you think something
> is safe to use in production first be sure to test it thoroughly on a
> stage instance. The author is also working on Postgres for 20 years,
> so this gives some insurance.
> --
> Michael
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-25 15:42:14 | Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-25 15:34:24 | Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-25 15:42:14 | Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-25 12:13:42 | Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade |