Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade
Date
Msg-id 5549.1511456440@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade  (Dmitry Shalashov <skaurus@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade
List pgsql-performance
Dmitry Shalashov <skaurus@gmail.com> writes:
> We tried to apply the patch on 10.1 source, but something is wrong it seems:
> patch -p1 < ../1.patch
> (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
> patching file src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c
> (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
> patching file src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 3270 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 3304 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 3313 (offset -91 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 3393 (offset -91 lines).
> patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 3570 with fuzz 1 (offset -91 lines).

The line number offsets are expected when applying to v10, but it looks
like you failed to transfer the attachment cleanly ... there were
certainly not CRs in it when I mailed it.  The output on v10
should just look like

patching file src/backend/optimizer/plan/analyzejoins.c
patching file src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 3270 (offset -91 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 3304 (offset -91 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 3313 (offset -91 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 3393 (offset -91 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 3570 (offset -91 lines).
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dmitry Shalashov
Date:
Subject: Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade
Next
From: Mariel Cherkassky
Date:
Subject: pgpool + repmgr - who should be responsible for failover