| From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work |
| Date: | 2008-04-01 06:52:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10803312352x7e58e971k6a9ea44497954f5d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, the lack of any formal testing of the extended-Query protocol
> is a real problem. I'm not sure of a good fix, but it bears some
> thinking about. Not only do we not have an automated way to notice
> if we broke functionality, but we don't really notice for either
> extended or basic protocol if we hurt performance.
I just posted something to -hackers about the availability of boxes
for QA purposes. It doesn't solve the problem by itself though.
A good answer is probably to plan optional JDBC benchmarks in the
benchfarm design - not all people want to run Java on their boxes but
we have servers of our own to do so. Andrew?
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mathias Hasselmann | 2008-04-01 07:35:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Avahi support for Postgresql |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-04-01 06:45:43 | New boxes available for QA |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2008-04-01 07:22:24 | Re: Deadlock while using getNotifications() and Statement.executeQuery() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-01 06:06:36 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work |