| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Palle Girgensohn <girgen(at)freebsd(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Francois Tigeot <ftigeot(at)wolfpond(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD |
| Date: | 2014-04-21 15:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | 15812.1398095890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-04-21 11:45:49 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> That seems to make more sense. I can't imagine why this would be a runtime
>> parameter as opposed to build time.
> Because that implies that packagers and porters need to make that
> decision. If it's a GUC people can benchmark it and decide.
As against that, the packager would be more likely to get it right
(or even to know that there's an issue).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2014-04-21 15:59:42 | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-21 15:49:01 | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD |