Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CLOG contention, part 2

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2
Date: 2012-01-22 22:30:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> OT: It would save lots of time if we had 2 things for the CF app:
> 2. Something that automatically tests patches. If you submit a patch
> we run up a blank VM and run patch applies on all patches. As soon as
> we get a fail, an email goes to patch author. That way authors know as
> soon as a recent commit invalidates something.

Well, first the CF app would need to reliably be able to find the
actual patch.  That is currently not a given.

Also, it seems that OID collisions are a dime a dozen, and I'm
starting to doubt that they are even worth reporting in the absence of
a more substantive review.  And in the patches I've looked at, it
seems like the OID is not even cross-referenced anywhere else in the
patch, the cross-references are all based on symbolic names.  I freely
admit I have no idea what I am talking about, but it seems like the
only purpose of OIDs is to create bit rot.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-01-22 22:58:55
Subject: Re: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation
Previous:From: Mikko TiihonenDate: 2012-01-22 21:47:06
Subject: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group