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.

Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

Reply via email to