Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> * Checkpointer process split broke fsync'ing
>> ** bug is fixed, but now we had better recheck earlier performance claims
>>
>> Is anyone actually going to do any performance testing on this?
> I am unlikely to have time between now and release.
Me either, and I didn't hear any other volunteers.
Even if testing showed that there was some performance regression,
I doubt that we would either revert the checkpointer process split or
hold up the release to look for another solution. So realistically this
is not a blocker issue. I'll move it to the "not blockers" section.
regards, tom lane