Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Date
Msg-id 15812.1398095890@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD  (Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>)
Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Next
From: Alfred Perlstein
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD