X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFD49FA465 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:29:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66275-04 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:28:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3872C9FA433 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:28:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:28:45 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 12 Sep 2006 09:28:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Performance problem with Sarge compared with Woody From: Scott Marlowe To: Merlin Moncure Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pi=F1eiro?= , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: <1157998456.7540.15.camel@codfix.local.igalia.com> <1158012220.1854.10.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1158071323.1854.29.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:28:43 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=SPF_PASS, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/84 X-Sequence-Number: 20770 On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 20:53, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 9/11/06, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > I'd suggest two things. > > > > one: Get a better ERP... :) or at least one you can inject some > > intelligence into, and two: upgrade to postgresql 8.1, or even 8.2 which > > will be released moderately soon, and if you won't be going into > > production directly, might be ready about the time you are. > > for 3 months I ran a 400M$ manufacturing company's erp off of a > pre-beta 8.0 windows pg server converted from cobol using some hacked > out c++ middleware. I remember having to change how the middleware > handled transactions when Alvaro changed them to a checkpoint > mechanism. I also remember being relieved when I no longer had to > manually edit pg_config.h so nobody would notice they would notice > they were running a beta version of postgresql had one of the > technical people casually logged into psql. I scraped out almost > completely unscathed except for a nasty crash due to low stack > allocation of the compiler on windows. > > the point of all this? get onto a recent version of postgresql, what > could possbily go wrong? You did notice I mentioned that it would only make sense if they weren't going into production right away. I.e. develop the app while pgdg develops the database, and release at about the same time. I wouldn't put 8.2 into production just yet, but if I had a launch date of next spring, I'd certainly consider developing on it now.