On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe writes:
>> OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
>> 9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
>> regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
>> to 9.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
> 9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
> regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
> to 9.3" in an afternoon. But w
Scott Marlowe writes:
> OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
> 9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
> regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
> to 9.3" in an afternoon. But we might have to. 9.2 seems hopel
OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
to 9.3" in an afternoon. But we might have to. 9.2 seems hopelessly
broken here.
The query l
