On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe writes:
>> OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
>> 9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
>> regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
>> to 9.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
> 9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
> regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
> to 9.3" in an afternoon. But w
Scott Marlowe writes:
> OK so we have a query that does OK in 8.4, goes to absolute crap in
> 9.2 and then works great in 9.3. Thing is we've spent several months
> regression testing 9.2 and no time testing 9.3, so we can't just "go
> to 9.3" in an afternoon. But we might have to. 9.2 seems hopel
