Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> * Checkpointer process split broke fsync'ing
>> ** bug is fixed, but now we had better recheck earlier performance claims
>> 
>> Is anyone actually going to do any performance testing on this?

> I am unlikely to have time between now and release.

Me either, and I didn't hear any other volunteers.

Even if testing showed that there was some performance regression,
I doubt that we would either revert the checkpointer process split or
hold up the release to look for another solution.  So realistically this
is not a blocker issue.  I'll move it to the "not blockers" section.

			regards, tom lane