Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd)

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
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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