X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8E6D1B592 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:52:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63334-10 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:51:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (unknown [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC63FD1B95A for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:51:19 -0400 (AST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9VJpCv05334; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200310311951.h9VJpCv05334@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Annotated release notes In-Reply-To: <16575.1067629674@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:51:12 -0500 (EST) Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200310/53 X-Sequence-Number: 2073 Updated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > I thought connections were faster because we passed fewer packets on > > startup, and I thought you measured a speed improvement in connection > > startup time. Am I remembering wrong? > > You're right, connection startup should be a little faster. "Connection > speed" implies a more general performance improvement, though, and I > don't think we have a basis for claiming that. If you want to say > faster startup, go ahead. > > regards, tom lane > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073