| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrency testing |
| Date: | 2009-10-07 18:49:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20091007184920.GM7719@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> >Yeah, the API they implemented wasn't ideal, so there was some
> >discussion that ended up with a specification everyone was happy with,
> >but then nobody got around to implementing it.
>
> I needed something like this and didn't implement those suggestions
> because I thought the whole idea didn't scale up enough. That's
> close to the right API to allow more complicated regression tests in
> psql itself, but I doubted that would hit real complexity level
> needed to find the good concurrent bugs.
I don't find this a compelling argument against concurrent psql. Sure
there are things you can't do with it, but it doesn't mean it's not
useful. Are we going to need further tools to find "the good concurrent
bugs"? No doubt.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Renner | 2009-10-07 19:09:40 | Performance testing framework.. |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-10-07 18:28:34 | Re: Concurrency testing |