On 2016-02-11 12:50:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I think we should either get this fixed RSN or revert the problematic > >> commit until we get it fixed. I'd be rather disappointed about the > >> latter because I think this was a very good thing on the merits, but > >> probably not good enough to justify taking the performance hit over > >> the long term. > > > > Since it's only in HEAD, I'm not seeing the urgency of reverting it. > > However, it'd be a good idea to put this on the 9.6 open items list > > (have we got such a page yet?) to make sure it gets addressed before > > beta. > > One problem is that it makes for misleading results if you try to > benchmark 9.5 against 9.6.
You need a really beefy box to show the problem. On a large/new 2 socket machine the performance regression in in the 1-3% range for a pgbench of SELECT 1. So it's not like it's immediately showing up for everyone. Putting it on the open items list sounds good to me. Regards, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
