Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2014-04-22 00:36:19
Message-ID: CAM3SWZTcoUFrFZ5j4+xXbGGFQ4x6pJe+ApmmTa_-g0ONZbsT0g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If there are indeed such large regressions on FreeBSD we need to treat
> them as postgres regressions. It's nicer not to add config options for
> things that don't need it, but apparently that's not the case here.

+1, but I think this is something for packagers to get right, not users.

I really don't like the idea of playing chicken with the FreeBSD
people, especially since we're going to use System V shared memory
into the foreseeable future anyway. It's probably *far* easier for us
to fix it than it is for the FreeBSD people to fix it.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-04-22 00:42:14 Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages?
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2014-04-22 00:34:58 Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD