| From: | Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_background contrib module proposal |
| Date: | 2016-12-21 18:03:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAJEAwVFMYZcHQYDZHwR4QKdYvV9mmij=24L4gtc46AGZ0HV9rA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2016-12-21 20:42 GMT+05:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> This whole subthread seems like a distraction to me. I find it hard
> to believe that this test case would be stable enough to survive the
> buildfarm where, don't forget, we have things like
> CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS machines where queries take 100x longer to run.
> But even if it is, surely we can pick a less contrived test case. So
> why worry about this?
David Fetter's test is deterministic and shall pass no matter how slow
and unpredictable perfromance is on a server.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-21 18:08:53 | Re: Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink and postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2016-12-21 17:58:52 | Re: pg_background contrib module proposal |