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 966C6D9079 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:19:04 -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 07008-06 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:19:03 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7DDD8ED6 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:19:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jA4IJ2R8016128; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 13:19:02 -0500 (EST) To: David Fetter Cc: Merlin Moncure , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert performance for win32 In-reply-to: <20051104181431.GA4017@fetter.org> References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD7D3@Herge.rcsinc.local> <15926.1131127280@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20051104181431.GA4017@fetter.org> Comments: In-reply-to David Fetter message dated "Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:14:31 -0800" Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:19:02 -0500 Message-ID: <16127.1131128342@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Score: 0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/90 X-Sequence-Number: 15347 David Fetter writes: > 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? Sure. This problem exists in 8.0.* too. Pre-existing bugs don't disqualify an RC in my mind --- we fix them and move on, same as we would do at any other time. regards, tom lane