Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Still, the performance regression here is bad enough that I think there
>> is little choice. Comments/objections?
> I agree that we should update stable to fix this performance regression,
> given the gravity of it. I also feel that we need to do so ASAP, to
> minimize the risk of people being affected by it. The longer we wait on
> it the more likely someone will write something which is affected.
In the normal course of events I'd expect that we'd put out 8.3.2
in a month or so. I'm not quite convinced that this issue is worth
speeding the cycle all by itself. We've done that for data-loss
issues but never before for a mere performance problem.
The main reason I wanted to make some noise about this is to find out
if anyone is actually trying to call eval_const_expressions (or
relation_excluded_by_constraints, which it turned out needed to change
also) from 8.3 add-on code. If anyone squawks we could think about a
faster update ...
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2008-04-01 02:03:14|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [email@example.com: Re: [BUGS] Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited]|
|Previous:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2008-04-01 01:08:14|
|Subject: Re: Guessing future postgresql features|
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2008-04-01 02:12:06|
|Subject: Re: How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2008-04-01 00:46:44|
|Subject: Re: How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot querydoesn't work|