On 5/24/21 8:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-05-24 12:37:18 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Another option might be changes in the binary layout - 5% change is well
>> within the range that could be attributed to this, but it feels very
>> hand-wavy and more like an excuse than real analysis.
>
> I don't think 5% is likely to be explained by binary layout unless you
> look for an explicitly adverse layout.
>
Yeah, true. But I'm out of ideas what might be causing the regression
and how to fix it :-(
>
>> Hmmm, thanks for reminding us that patch. Why did we reject that approach in
>> favor of the current one?
>
> Don't know about others, but I think it's way too fragile.
>
Is it really that fragile? Any particular risks you have in mind? Maybe
we could protect against that somehow ... Anyway, that change would
certainly be for PG15.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
