On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
