X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9334DA6F4;
	Sun,  6 Nov 2005 05:02:35 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 94330-02; Sun,  6 Nov 2005 09:02:33 +0000 (GMT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ACED79D9;
	Sun,  6 Nov 2005 05:02:34 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 192.168.0.3 (unknown [84.12.200.148])
	by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 03022252C69; Sun,  6 Nov 2005 09:02:34 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert performance for win32
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <200511041821.jA4IL7117478@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200511041821.jA4IL7117478@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 2nd Quadrant
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:00:05 +0000
Message-Id: <1131267605.8300.2055.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.01 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010]
X-Spam-Score: 0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200511/96
X-Sequence-Number: 15353

On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 13:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I'm inclined to treat this as an outright bug, not just a minor
> > > performance issue, because it implies that a sufficiently long psql
> > > script would probably crash a Windows machine.
> > 
> > Ouch.  In light of this, are we *sure* what we've got a is a candidate
> > for release?
> 
> Good point.  It is something we would fix in a minor release, so it
> doesn't seem worth doing another RC just for that.

Will this be documented in the release notes? If we put unimplemented
features in TODO, where do we list things we regard as bugs?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs