From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
Date: | 2017-08-09 14:56:50 |
Message-ID: | 32157.1502290610@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was
>>> thinking we should stick them under some make target that developers
>>> run all the time anyway -- perhaps "check". Shouldn't we catch simple
>>> mechanically detectable problems as early in the pipeline as possible?
>> Adding overhead to every developer's every test cycle doesn't sound
>> like a win.
> If it takes 100ms, nobody's gonna notice.
I doubt running a perl script that analyzes the entire backend source
code is gonna take 100ms.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-08-09 15:18:37 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-09 14:51:49 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-08-09 15:18:37 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-09 14:51:49 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |