| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? |
| Date: | 2013-11-13 20:14:09 |
| Message-ID: | 23790.1384373649@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> What I'm hoping will happen next is that the complainants will hot-patch
>> that and see if it fixes their problems. We can't really determine
>> what to do without that information.
> Unfortunately, the original reporter of this issue will not be available
> for testing for 2-3 weeks, and I haven't been able to devise a synthetic
> test which clearly shows the issue.
Well, we had a synthetic test from the other complainant. What's at
stake now is whether this is a good enough fix for real-world cases.
I'm willing to wait ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dieter Komendera | 2013-11-14 14:36:57 | Bad plan choices & statistic targets with a GIN index |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-11-13 19:34:11 | Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? |