| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd) |
| Date: | 2019-02-18 00:06:09 |
| Message-ID: | 12165.1550448369@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> Unfortunately, there was no activity over the last few commitfests and the
>> proposed patch pgbench-tap-progress-6 can't be applied anymore without
>> conflicts. Fabien, what are your plans about it, could you please post a
>> rebased version?
> Here it is.
I'm confused about the intended scope of this patch. The thread title
refers only to adding a regression test, but the actual patch includes
nontrivial C-code changes, and a skim of the recent discussion suggests
that there are some bug fixes involved. Please clarify.
As I think I made clear already, I am not in favor of adding more
timing-sensitive regression tests here. I do not think there is
value commensurate with the risk of intermittent test failures.
However, if we're fixing bugs or poor behavior, that's certainly
worth doing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Sewell | 2019-02-18 00:19:01 | Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-18 00:04:22 | Re: Re: BUG #15629: Typo in Documentation |