Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work

From: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Date: 2008-04-01 06:52:55
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10803312352x7e58e971k6a9ea44497954f5d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>  Yeah, the lack of any formal testing of the extended-Query protocol
>  is a real problem.  I'm not sure of a good fix, but it bears some
>  thinking about.  Not only do we not have an automated way to notice
>  if we broke functionality, but we don't really notice for either
>  extended or basic protocol if we hurt performance.

I just posted something to -hackers about the availability of boxes
for QA purposes. It doesn't solve the problem by itself though.

A good answer is probably to plan optional JDBC benchmarks in the
benchfarm design - not all people want to run Java on their boxes but
we have servers of our own to do so. Andrew?

-- 
Guillaume

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mathias HasselmannDate: 2008-04-01 07:35:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Avahi support for Postgresql
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 06:45:43
Subject: New boxes available for QA

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2008-04-01 07:22:24
Subject: Re: Deadlock while using getNotifications() and Statement.executeQuery()
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-01 06:06:36
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group