Greg Smith wrote: > I think it does a better job of showing how LDC can shift the top > percentile around under heavy load, even though there are runs where it's > a clear improvement. Since there is so much variability in results when > you get into this territory, you really need to run a lot of these tests > to get a feel for the spread of behavior. I spent about a week of > continuously running tests stalking this bugger before I felt I'd mapped > out the boundaries with my app. You've got your own priorities, but I'd > suggest you try to find enough time for a more exhaustive look at this > area before nailing down the final form for the patch.
OK, I have hit my limit on people asking for more testing. I am not against testing, but I don't want to get into a situation where we just keep asking for more tests and not move forward. I am going to rely on the patch submitters to suggest when enough testing has been done and move on. I don't expect this patch to be perfect when it is applied. I do expect to be a best effort, and it will get continual real-world testing during beta and we can continue to improve this. Right now, we know we have a serious issue with checkpoint I/O, and this patch is going to improve that in most cases. I don't want to see us reject it or greatly delay beta as we try to make it perfect. My main point is that should keep trying to make the patch better, but the patch doesn't have to be perfect to get applied. I don't want us to get into a death-by-testing spiral. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
