On 2018-Aug-17, Fred Habash wrote:
> Aurora Postgres 9.6.3
Oh, okay, I don't know this one. Did you contact Amazon support?
> So, no chance to recompile (AFAIK).
> Is there a design anti-pattern at the schema or data access level that we
> should look for and correct?
Maybe ...
> And as for t
Aurora Postgres 9.6.3
So, no chance to recompile (AFAIK).
Is there a design anti-pattern at the schema or data access level that we
should look for and correct?
And as for the recompile, are you thinking 'NUM_SUBTRANS_BUFFERS'?
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
On 2018-08-17 15:21:19 +0200, Alexis Lê-Quôc wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-08-14 10:46:45 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2018-08-14 15:18:55 +0200, Alexis Lê-Quôc wrote:
> > > > + 30.25%26.78% postgres postgres [.]
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-08-14 10:46:45 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-08-14 15:18:55 +0200, Alexis Lê-Quôc wrote:
> > > + 30.25%26.78% postgres postgres [.] mdnblocks
> >
> > This I've likely fixed ~two years back:
> >
> >