From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 =?UTF-8?B?0JLQsNGB0LjQu9GM0LXQsiDQlNC80LjRgtGA0LjQuQ==?=
 <d.vasilyev@postgrespro.ru>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZk+ry4v5WB_n2fBQK2husZ9XjS1sGKMxohr-ebAidiWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160114170604.GJ10941@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoanS+7wpYZeX1C5Vp1XL56XK7f3mx1T+94QDN0_a+y3Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160114171421.GK10941@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <20160114172216.GL10941@awork2.anarazel.de> <8031.1452792493@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmobft858D8YHOMAUDY31d5Li1wt6p0-MvYeTVwo0UkoBqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <21927.1455212919@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZZrb9SUjisMvy6sy08wrtqNzXvZBtcKkC5E6ZSy+rj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160211175308.6er3o2oonzgxfvwp@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoaYuAbFviV2CvFkct9k3wGR+cVdyOMUnS=c=ZPG0aDD7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160211181924.eacehhcpjn7s3xhc@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoZk+ry4v5WB_n2fBQK2husZ9XjS1sGKMxohr-ebAidiWg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
 message dated "Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:29:02 -0500"
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:41:20 -0500
Message-ID: <23665.1455216080@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> 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.

Don't particularly want the git history churn, if we expect that the
patch will ship as-committed in 9.6.  If it becomes clear that the
performance fix is unlikely to happen, we can revert then.

If the performance change were an issue for a lot of testing, I'd agree
with a temporary revert, but I concur with Andres that it's not blocking
much.  Anybody who does have an issue there can revert locally, no?

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers