On Tuesday 17 October 2006 22:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > When it happens it tends to look something like this:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-01/msg00154.php
> >
> > Funny that for all the people who claim that improving the planner should
> > be the primary goal that no one ever took interest in the above case.
>
> Well, you didn't provide sufficient data for anyone else to reproduce
> the problem ...
>
Geez Tom, cut me some slack... no one even bothered to respond that that post
with a "hey we can't tell cause we need more information"...
not that it matters because here is where I reposted the problem with more
information
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-01/msg00248.php
where you'll note that Josh agreed with my thinking that there was an issue
with the planner and he specifically asked for comments from you.
And here is where I reposted the problem to -bugs
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-01/msg00134.php where I make
note of discussing this with several other people, got Bruce to hazard a
guess which was debunked, and where I noted to Bruce about 10 days later that
there had been no further action and no one had asked for the _sample
database_ I was able to put together.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL