| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
| Date: | 2005-08-09 00:15:49 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.56.0508081907070.29622@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> So the short answer is possibly "You build the tests and we'll run 'em."
>
Automated performance testing seems like a bad idea for the buildfarm.
Consider in my particular case I've got three members that all happen to
be running in virtual machines on the same host. What virtualization does
for performance and what happens when all three members are running at the
same time renders any results beyond useless. Certainly soliciting the
pgbuildfarm-members(at)pgfoundry(dot)org list is good idea, but I don't think
automating this testing is a good idea without more knowledge of the
machines and their other workloads.
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-08-09 00:22:20 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-08-09 00:06:22 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |