| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd) |
| Date: | 2020-04-08 12:58:14 |
| Message-ID: | 5553a602-50b4-d2fa-63ed-aa39d7f0c06a@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/28/20 5:27 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
>
>>> I'd be rather unclear about what the actual feedback is, though. I'd
>>> interpret it as "pg does not care much about code coverage". Most
>>> clients
>>> are in the red on coverage.postgresql.org. I'd like pgbench at least
>>> to be
>>> in the green, but it does not look that it will ever be the case.
>
>> The reason why the first iteration failed was that it was insufficiently
>> insensitive to timing.
This patch has been marked Returned with Feedback.
If the TAP tests could be made to work without the special exceptions
added to pgbench.c I think this patch would have a better chance.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-04-08 12:59:50 | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-08 12:43:18 | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() |