Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> On 2/27/07, Josh Berkus <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I see no reason to implement it if there is no performance gain.
>>>> However, I strongly concur that we need at least some evidence. It could
>>>> easily be that a misstep in the code, causes a loop over the wrong set
>>>> and all the performance we thought we would get is invalid, not because
>>>> of theory or what should happen, but because of actual implementation.
>>> It rather sounds like you're asking for a proof that Simon can write
>>> code before you allow him to write any code.
>> Well wouldn't that be great! :) but no, not quite. I would just like to
>> see some metrics showing that it is a benefit. Besides the patch needs
>> to work for the metrics to be run.
> I don't understand the great demand for metrics at this point. Once the
> patch is ready, people can run the patch on their workloads to get
> real-world metrics. Metrics are only needed before the patch is
> applied, not before it is discussed.
I don't disagree. Maybe I missed something here, but my whole argument
for metrics was purely for the feature to be accepted. I would certainly
expect full discussion.
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?