Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

Tom Lane said:
> Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
>> Automated performance testing seems like a bad idea for the buildfarm.
>> Consider in my particular case I've got three members that all
>> happen to be running in virtual machines on the same host. What
>> virtualization does for performance and what happens when all three
>> members are running at the same time renders any results beyond
>> useless.
>
> Certainly a good point --- but as I noted to Andrew, we'd probably be
> more interested in one-off tests than repetitive testing anyway. So
> possibly this could be handled with a different protocol, and buildfarm
> machine owners could be careful to schedule slots for such tests at
> times when their machine is otherwise idle.
>
> Anyway it all needs some thought ...
>

Well, of course running tests would be optional.

But it's also possible that we would create a similar but separate setup to
run performance tests. Creating it would be lots easier this time around ;-)

Let's come up with something we can run by hand, decide the parameters, and
set set about automating and distributing it.

cheers

andrew