On 2016-05-03 11:12:03 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > - Snapshot Too Old. Tom, Andres, and Bruce want this reverted. > > It regresses performance significantly when turned on. > > When turned on, it improves performance in some cases and regresses > performance in others. Don't forget it is currently back-patched > to 9.4 and in use for production by users who could not use > PostgreSQL without the feature. PostgreSQL failed their > performance tests miserably without the feature, and passes with > it. > > > It originally regressed performance significantly even when > > turned off, > > Which was wildly exaggerated since most of the benchmarks > purporting to show that actually had it turned on. I don't think > the FUD from that has really evaporated.
Oh, ffs. The first report of the whole issue was *with default parameters*: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdtMONZFOXSsw1HkrD9Eb4ozF8Q8oCqH4tkpH_girJPPuA%40mail.gmail.com The issue with 0 v. -1 (and 0 vs. > 0 makes a big performance difference, so it's not that surprising to interpret numbers that way) was immediately addressed by another round of benchmarks after you pointed it out. > > 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. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers