| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) |
| Date: | 2018-05-10 19:37:04 |
| Message-ID: | 373.1525981024@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-05-10 12:18:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Next question is what to do with this. Do we want to sit on it till
>> v12, or sneak it in now?
> Is there a decent argument for sneaking it in? I don't really have an
> opinion. I don't think it'd really be arguable that this'll make testing
> meaningfully faster. OTOH, it's fresh in your mind (which can be said
> about a lot of patches obviously).
Yeah, I had hoped that this might make a noticeable difference on slower
buildfarm animals, but some testing shows that it's more likely to be
barely above the noise floor.
OTOH, in view of Josh's old gripe, maybe it could be argued to be a bug
fix, at least on platforms where it does anything.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-05-10 19:38:34 | Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-10 19:08:31 | Re: pg_ugprade test failure on data set with column with default value with type bit/varbit |