On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 26 September 2016 at 21:52, Vladimir Gordiychuk <fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>You should rely on time I tests as little as possible. Some of the test
>>> hosts are VERY slow. If possible something deterministic should be used.
>> That's why this changes difficult to verify. Maybe in that case we should
>> write benchmark but not integration test?
>> In that case we can say, before this changes stopping logical replication
>> gets N ms but after apply changes it gets NN ms where NN ms less than N ms.
>> Is it available add this kind of benchmark to postgresql? I will be grateful
>> for links.
> It's for that reason that I added a message printed only in verbose
> mode that pg_recvlogical emits when it's exiting after a
> client-initiated copydone.
> You can use the TAP tests, print diag messages, etc. But we generally
> want them to run fairly quickly, so big benchmark runs aren't
> desirable. You'll notice that I left diag messages in to report the
> timing for the results in your tests, I just changed the tests so they
> didn't depend on very tight timing for success/failure anymore.
> We don't currently have any automated benchmarking infrastructure.

Which seems like this patch is not complete yet. I am marking it as
returned with feedback, but it may be a better idea to move it to next
CF once a new version with updated tests shows up.

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

Reply via email to