X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB4DDACFE; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:10:27 -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 86733-05; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:10:25 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from trolak.mydnsbox2.com (ns1.mydnsbox2.com [207.44.142.118]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BECADACE5; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:10:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (cpe-024-211-165-134.nc.res.rr.com [24.211.165.134]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by trolak.mydnsbox2.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jA6GQHE02487; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0600 Message-ID: <436E38EE.2000708@dunslane.net> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:10:06 -0500 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Riggs Cc: Bruce Momjian , David Fetter , Tom Lane , Merlin Moncure , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert performance for win32 References: <200511041821.jA4IL7117478@candle.pha.pa.us> <1131267605.8300.2055.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1131267605.8300.2055.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.034 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034] X-Spam-Score: 0.034 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/236 X-Sequence-Number: 75518 Simon Riggs wrote: >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? > > > > No need, I think. It was patched 2 days ago. cheers andrew