> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> Would certainly be nice.  Realistically, getting good automated
>>> performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me
>>> for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile open source
>>> performance test platforms currently don't exist.  That money has never
>>> been available; maybe I should do a kickstarter.
> 
>> So in order to get *testing* we need to pay somebody. But to build a great
>> database server, we can rely on volunteer efforts or sponsorship from
>> companies who are interested in moving the project forward?
> 
> And even more to the point, volunteers to reinvent the kernel I/O stack
> can be found on every street corner?  And those volunteers won't need any
> test scaffolding to be sure that *their* version never has performance
> regressions?  (Well, no, they won't, because no such thing will ever be
> built.  But we do need better test scaffolding for real problems.)

Can we avoid the Linux kernel problem by simply increasing our shared
buffer size, say up to 80% of memory?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to