On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > Putting it on the open items list sounds good to me. >> >> Well, OK, I've done that then. I don't really agree that it's not a >> problem; the OP said he saw a 3x regression, and some of my colleagues >> doing benchmarking are complaining about this commit, too. It doesn't >> seem like much of a stretch to think that it might be affecting other >> people as well. > > Well, I can't do anything about that right now. I won't have the time to > whip up the new/more complex API we discussed upthread in the next few > days. So either we go with a simpler API (e.g. pretty much a cleaned up > version of my earlier patch), revert the postmaster deatch check, or > somebody else has to take lead in renovating, or we wait...
Well, I thought we could just revert the patch until you had time to deal with it, and then put it back in. That seemed like a simple and practical option from here, and I don't think I quite understand why you and Tom don't like it. I don't have a problem with deferring to the majority will here, but I would sort of like to understand the reason for the majority will. BTW, if need be, I can look for an EnterpriseDB resource to work on this. It won't likely be me, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
