| 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) |
| Date: | 2020-07-13 10:21:55 |
| Message-ID: | 01B7E461-9388-456A-AEDE-6237704018FD@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |