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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 06:06:36
Message-ID: 21240.1207029996@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc
"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Another question is how we can be sure it doesn't happen again. The
> easiest way to test this is probably to have a JDBC test testing this
> exact feature in the future benchfarm. Any comment?

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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 06:45:43
Subject: New boxes available for QA
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 05:51:11
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 06:52:55
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 05:51:11
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