Horton

Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-01-02T20:20:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add bytea_agg, parallel to string_agg.

  2. Fix ALTER TABLE ONLY .. DROP CONSTRAINT.

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> But you still didn't. I wanted to know what those numbers were and how
>> they show that there's not a performance regression. Presumably you
>> meant that some were "before" and some "after", but they were not so
>> labeled.

> All timings were "after" applying the patch. Since all of the tests
> had very acceptable absolute values I didn't test without-patch.

What is a "very acceptable absolute value", and how do you know it's
acceptable if you don't know what the previous performance was?  This
reasoning makes no sense to me at all.

			regards, tom lane