You don't have to do anything if you don't want to.
Sure:-) What I mean is that I think that this patch is not ripe, and I
understood that some people were suggesting that it could be applied as is
right away. I'm really disagreeing with that.
I said myself that this needs performance testing of the worst-case
scenario, one where we would expect this to perform worse than without
the patch. Then we can look at how bad that effect is, and decide if
that's acceptable.
Ok, I'm fine with that. It's quite different from "looks ok apply now".
That said, if you could do that testing, that would be great!
Hmmm. I was not really planing to. On the other hand, I have some scripts
and a small setup that I've been using to test checkpointer flushing, and
it would be easy to start some tests.
Having a guc would also help to test the feature with different values
than 1.5, which really seems harmful from a math point of view. I'm not
sure at all that a power formula is the right approach.
Yeah, a GUC would be helpful in testing this. I'm hoping that we would come
up with a reasonable formula that would work well enough for everyone that we
wouldn't need to have a GUC in the final patch, though.
Yep. If it is a guc testing is quite easy and I may run my scripts...
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
