On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> Hello Haribabu,
> Alas, performance testing is quite sensitive to many details:-(
> The current status of the patch and recent mail thread discussion doesn't
>> represent the same.
> The same what?
> The discussion was about a particular test in a particular setting for a
> particular load, the fact that reducing the latency has a limited effect in
> that case is a fact in life. I have produced other settings where the
> effect was very important. The patch has no down side AFAICS.
> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
>> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
> Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for
> committer" patch is switched to "return with feedback", as there is nothing
> actionnable, and I've done everything required to improve the syntax and
> implementation, and to justify why these functions are useful.
> I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which
> require a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use
> case, including not being limited to the current set of operators.
> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.
Sorry for the changing the status of the patch against to the current
While going through the recent mails, I thought that there is some
from committer. Thanks for the clarification.
Updated status as follows.
Moved to next CF with "ready for committer" status.