Greetings, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > On 06/04/18 19:39, Andres Freund wrote: > >On 2018-04-06 07:39:28 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>While I tend to agree that it'd be nice to just make it cheaper, that > >>doesn't seem like something that we'd be likely to back-patch and I tend > >>to share Heikki's feelings that this is a performance regression we > >>should be considering fixing in released versions. > > To be clear, this isn't a performance *regression*. It's always been bad.
Oh, I see, apologies for the confusion, my initial read was that this was due to some patch that had gone in previously, hence it was an actual regression. I suppose I tend to view performance issues as either "regression" or "opportunity for improvement" and when you said "bug" it made me think it was a regression. :) > I'm not sure if I'd backpatch this. Maybe after it's been in 'master' for a > while and we've gotten some field testing of it. If it's not a regression then there's I definitely think the bar is much higher to consider this something to back-patch. I wouldn't typically argue for back-patching a performance improvement unless it's to address a specific regression. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
