| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 14:51:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY4oDqzgSYmM1DTC-ry++yHvPots6XGqJorOrvxFQDhKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-09 14:56:50 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-09 14:14:14 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-09 14:56:50 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-09 14:14:14 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |