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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Date
Msg-id 20140421154346.GE14024@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2014-04-21 17:39:39 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> But do we really want a *guc* for it though? Isn't it enough (and in fact
> better) with a configure switch to pick the implementation when multiple
> are available, that could then be set by default for example by the freebsd
> ports build? That's a lot less "overhead" to keep dragging around...

Well, we don't know at all it's just freebsd that's affected. In fact, I
would be surprised if there aren't other platforms that regressed due to
this.
I think a configure switch actually ends up being more code than the GUC...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Composite Datums containing toasted fields are a bad idea(?)
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD