|From:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|To:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 8 Apr 2020, at 14:58, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 3/28/20 5:27 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Hello Tom,
>> Thanks for your feedback,
>>>> I'd be rather unclear about what the actual feedback is, though. I'd
>>>> interpret it as "pg does not care much about code coverage". Most clients
>>>> are in the red on coverage.postgresql.org. I'd like pgbench at least to be
>>>> in the green, but it does not look that it will ever be the case.
>>> The reason why the first iteration failed was that it was insufficiently
>>> insensitive to timing.
> This patch has been marked Returned with Feedback.
> If the TAP tests could be made to work without the special exceptions added to pgbench.c I think this patch would have a better chance.
Turns out it wasn't, but I'm doing that now since this has been stalled since.
|Next Message||Amit Kapila||2020-07-13 10:30:03||Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions|
|Previous Message||Daniel Gustafsson||2020-07-13 10:04:09||Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file|