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

Performance Patches Was: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest)

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Performance Patches Was: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest)
Date: 2010-02-27 23:22:58
Message-ID: 4B89A952.1000709@catalyst.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Smith wrote:
>
>
> While I was in there I also added some more notes on my personal top 
> patch submission peeve, patches whose purpose in life is to improve 
> performance that don't come with associated easy to run test cases, 
> including a sample of that test running on a system that shows the 
> speedup clearly.  If I were in charge I just would make it standard 
> project policy to reject any performance patch without those 
> characteristics immediately.
>

While I completely agree that the submitter should be required to supply 
a test case and their results, so the rest of us can try to reproduce 
said improvement - rejecting the patch out of hand is a bit harsh I feel 
- Hey, they may just have forgotten to supply these things! The reviewer 
can always ask, can they not? I would prefer to see the wiki say 
something along the lines of "If you don't supply a test case you will 
be asked for one before any further review can proceed..."

Cheers

Mark


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-27 23:49:09
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-02-27 22:28:49
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

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