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

Re: sinval contention reduction

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sinval contention reduction
Date: 2008-01-28 09:25:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 19:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This seems large, complex, and untested (I note in particular a
> >> guaranteed-to-fail Assert).  
> > Yes, its for discussion. How would you describe such a patch in the
> > future? I want to be able to differentiate patch status.
> "Completely untested" might be an appropriate description ...

That wouldn't be true, because it passes make check. If it were true,
I'd have said it.

Your responses are inappropriate to a patch clearly marked "for
discussion", especially when you privately suggested this topic for me
to look at and you also know exactly which system I was going to run a
performance test on once I had the patch agreed.

  Simon Riggs

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SDDate: 2008-01-28 11:25:45
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Dean RasheedDate: 2008-01-28 09:21:50
Subject: Auto-explain patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group