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
