Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0
Date: 2016-02-26 15:57:17
Message-ID: CA+TgmobDYiX3fRxOxS-JOF_SFAQjA_8zrbcQGZdxPHBoMa4J8g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Don't understand this. If a problem is caused by one of two things, first
> you check one, then the other.

I don't quite understand how you think that patch can be decomposed
into multiple, independent changes. It was one commit because every
change in there is interdependent with every other one, at least as
far as I can see. I don't really understand how you'd split it up, or
what useful information you'd hope to gain from testing a split patch.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-02-26 15:59:06 Re: [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.
Previous Message Roma Sokolov 2016-02-26 15:46:13 [PATCH] fix DROP OPERATOR to reset links to itself on commutator and negator