Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UXXgc-0005OF-IB for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 14:07:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UXXgc-0000rA-0o for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 14:07:10 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UXXga-0000qA-JE for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 14:07:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UXXgY-0007hu-4E for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 14:07:08 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r41E6uBK002122; Wed, 1 May 2013 10:06:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: Mark Kirkwood cc: Gavin Flower , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table In-reply-to: <5180E3C8.3010201@catalyst.net.nz> References: <5179E77B.7050601@catalyst.net.nz> <5179ECC5.2010206@archidevsys.co.nz> <5179F259.3010509@catalyst.net.nz> <5179F5C6.8070702@archidevsys.co.nz> <5180E3C8.3010201@catalyst.net.nz> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Kirkwood message dated "Wed, 01 May 2013 21:43:36 +1200" Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 10:06:55 -0400 Message-ID: <2121.1367417215@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Mark Kirkwood writes: > I am concerned that the deafening lack of any replies to my original > message is a result of folk glancing at your original quick reply and > thinking... incomplete problem spec...ignore... when that is not that > case - yes I should have muttered "9.2" in the original email, but we > have covered that now. No, I think it's more that we're trying to get to beta, and so anything that looks like new development is getting shuffled to folks' "to look at later" queues. The proposed patch is IMO a complete nonstarter anyway; but I'm not sure what a less bogus solution would look like. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance