Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> AFAICS the problem here is that this test doesn't use MultiXactIds at
> all in 9.2, but it does in 9.3. I vaguely recall Noah tried to convince
> me to put in an optimization which would have avoided this issue; I will
> give that a thought. I don't think I will be able to
Oskari Saarenmaa wrote:
> 05.10.2013 01:31, Alvaro Herrera kirjoitti:
> > AFAICS the problem here is that this test doesn't use MultiXactIds at
> > all in 9.2, but it does in 9.3. I vaguely recall Noah tried to convince
> > me to put in an optimization which would have avoided this issue; I will
>
Oskari Saarenmaa wrote:
> 05.10.2013 01:31, Alvaro Herrera kirjoitti:
> > AFAICS the problem here is that this test doesn't use MultiXactIds at
> > all in 9.2, but it does in 9.3. I vaguely recall Noah tried to convince
> > me to put in an optimization which would have avoided this issue; I will
>
05.10.2013 01:31, Alvaro Herrera kirjoitti:
> AFAICS the problem here is that this test doesn't use MultiXactIds at
> all in 9.2, but it does in 9.3. I vaguely recall Noah tried to convince
> me to put in an optimization which would have avoided this issue; I will
> give that a thought. I don't t
AFAICS the problem here is that this test doesn't use MultiXactIds at
all in 9.2, but it does in 9.3. I vaguely recall Noah tried to convince
me to put in an optimization which would have avoided this issue; I will
give that a thought. I don't think I will be able to get it done for
9.3.1 though.
o...@ohmu.fi wrote:
> The following code performs a lot slower on PostgreSQL 9.3.0 than on
> PostgreSQL 9.2.4:
>
> DROP TABLE IF EXISTS tmp;
> CREATE TABLE tmp (id BIGSERIAL, vals BIGINT[]);
> DO $$
> DECLARE
> r_id BIGINT;
> n BIGINT;
> BEGIN
> FOR n IN 1..1000 LOOP
> BEGIN
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 8470
Logged by: Oskari Saarenmaa
Email address: o...@ohmu.fi
PostgreSQL version: 9.3.0
Operating system: Linux
Description:
The following code performs a lot slower on PostgreSQL 9.3.0 than on
PostgreSQL
