On 30.01.2012 17:18, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I committed this. I ran pgbench test on an 8-core box and didn't see any
>> slowdown. It would still be good if you get a chance to rerun the bigger
>> test, but I feel confident that there's no measurable slowdown.
> I asked clearly and specifically for you to hold back committing
> anything. Not sure why you would ignore that and commit without
> actually asking myself or Peter. On a point of principle alone, I
> think you should revert. Working together is difficult if
> communication channels are openly ignored and disregarded.
You must be referring to this:
What I committed in the end was quite different from the version that
was in reply to, too. If you have a specific objection to the patch as
committed, please let me know.
> Peter and I have been working on a new version that seems likely to
> improve performance over your suggestions. We should be showing
> something soon.
Please post those ideas, and let's discuss them. If it's something
simple, maybe we can still sneak them into this release. Otherwise,
let's focus on the existing patches that are pending review or commit.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Adrian Klaver||Date: 2012-01-30 15:34:49|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-01-30 15:26:05|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|