Message-ID: <5180E3C8.3010201@catalyst.net.nz>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 21:43:36 +1200
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
CC: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table
References: <5179E77B.7050601@catalyst.net.nz>
	<5179ECC5.2010206@archidevsys.co.nz>
	<5179F259.3010509@catalyst.net.nz>
	<5179F5C6.8070702@archidevsys.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <5179F5C6.8070702@archidevsys.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 26/04/13 15:34, Gavin Flower wrote:
> On 26/04/13 15:19, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> While in general you are quite correct - in the above case
>> (particularly as I've supplied a test case) it should be pretty
>> obvious that any moderately modern version of postgres on any
>> supported platform will exhibit this.
 >
> While I admit that I did not look closely at your test case - I am aware
> that several times changes to Postgres from one minor version to
> another, can have drastic unintended side effects (which might, or might
> not, be relevant to your situation). Besides, it helps sets the scene,
> and is one less thing that needs to be deduced.
>

Indeed - however, my perhaps slightly grumpy reply to your email was 
based on an impression of over keen-ness to dismiss my message without 
reading it (!) and a - dare I say it - one size fits all presentation of 
"here are the hoops to jump through". Now I spent a reasonable amount of 
time preparing the message and its attendant test case - and a comment 
such as your based on *not reading it* ...errrm... well lets say I think 
we can/should do better.

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.

Regards


Mark


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance