Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

Kevin Grittner wrote:
>  
> 8.3.7
> real    0m24.249s
> real    0m24.054s
> real    0m24.361s
>  
> 8.4rc1
> real    0m33.503s
> real    0m34.198s
> real    0m33.931s
>  
>
>   

Ugh. This looks like a poster child case for a benchfarm ...

Is there any chance you guys could triangulate this a bit? Good initial 
triangulation points might be the end of each commitfest. (I have a 
vested interest in making sure COPY performance doesn't regress, since 
it will affect parallel restore's speed in spades.)

cheers

andrew