Re: New alpha spinlock code passes regression test

From: Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Arrigo Triulzi <arrigo(at)albourne(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development Mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New alpha spinlock code passes regression test
Date: 2000-06-15 07:02:29
Message-ID: 39487F85.505F71EB@albourne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Cool --- did you try the parallel regress tests, or just sequential?
>
> My experience is that it takes quite a few iterations of the parallel
> tests before you should have much confidence that there aren't locking
> bugs lurking. But if it comes through that, send in the patch and
> we'll gratefully accept it!

I've run the regression tests several times (also the parallel ones and
bigtest). It failed geometry, but it always does due to different
rounding. Passed everything else, so it looks ok.

Now I'm trying to figure out how I can do a sensible timing test on the
two versions to see whether it is any faster. The postgres benchmark
finishes in such a ridiculously short time, that that isn't telling me
anything.

Adriaan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-06-15 07:06:12 Re: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous Message Chris Bitmead 2000-06-15 06:56:12 Re: Big 7.1 open items