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?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mathias Hasselmann||Date: 2008-04-01 07:35:56|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Avahi support for Postgresql|
|Previous:||From: Guillaume Smet||Date: 2008-04-01 06:45:43|
|Subject: New boxes available for QA|
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Kris Jurka||Date: 2008-04-01 07:22:24|
|Subject: Re: Deadlock while using getNotifications() and Statement.executeQuery()|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-01 06:06:36|
|Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work |