pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:14:09 -0500
Message-ID: <23790.1384373649@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5283D433.3040406@agliodbs.com>
References: <WM!f3d412a8ff9fb2a52f4cfd0f48c225b6122ba5bf1e1523173b5dbc63db143b9cab09ac3f5518a12a19d2507538472d98!@asav-1.01.com>
	<51FAA1B8.6040809@agliodbs.com>
	<CAMkU=1wn3npjTjEkC8rYMgmoKXYoAgfxosT_Q3v_=wTfriPKdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<522E69F1.8070203@dunslane.net>
	<20130910122036.GF1024477@alap2.anarazel.de>
	<522F146D.2070908@dunslane.net>
	<WM!21a18aa9cbf2098b3ceb8d93a0769806466db819c328e3d732b1667507e087969764ace79b57bc4d6e54a0bce329a6fa!@asav-3.01.com>
	<5230B801.90507@agliodbs.com>
	<20130911211253.GF1138556@alap2.anarazel.de>
	<WM!c3606120c0bb347c33db79557781a3bddaeb55ccb41e40a3859a4dc0d258d194010ad0001617c701ce31e795a28cb6ca!@asav-2.01.com>
	<523120E9.6020300@agliodbs.com>
	<24236.1383940000@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1384014645.82057.YahooMailNeo@web162903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<19685.1384307200@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<WM!53245515c260eb3f3ebba35fd7da76a6c4d81274ee6f204f23312f2e9a8487c869ace190beab2dada668e213a6b65dd7!@asav-2.01.com>
	<5283D433.3040406@agliodbs.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> What I'm hoping will happen next is that the complainants will hot-patch
>> that and see if it fixes their problems.  We can't really determine
>> what to do without that information.

> Unfortunately, the original reporter of this issue will not be available
> for testing for 2-3 weeks, and I haven't been able to devise a synthetic
> test which clearly shows the issue.

Well, we had a synthetic test from the other complainant.  What's at
stake now is whether this is a good enough fix for real-world cases.
I'm willing to wait ...

			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



view thread (43+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <23790.1384373649@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../23790.1384373649@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/23790.1384373649@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com, kgrittn@ymail.com, andres@2ndquadrant.com, andrew@dunslane.net, jeff.janes@gmail.com, amit.kapila@huawei.com
  Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
  In-Reply-To: <23790.1384373649@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox