On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is this something people are interested in? I am thinking no > > based on the lack of requests and the size of the patch. > > Lack of requests? I was actually surprised by how enthusiastically > people reacted to it.
I think it could form the basis of some concurrency testing, something we'll need more and more as time goes on. :) Gregory, Would you be up for getting this updated in the 8.3 cycle? Cheers, D > > However I don't think the patch as is is ready to be committed. Aside from > missing documentation and regression tests it was only intended to be a > proof-of-concept and to be useful for specific tests I was doing. > > I did try to do a decent job, I got \timing and server-tracked variables like > encoding. But I need to go back through the code and make sure there are no > other details like that. > > It would be nice to get feedback from other developers from looking at the > patch to confirm that there aren't more fundamental problems with the approach > and how it uses libpq before I go through the effort of cleaning up the > details. > > -- > Gregory Stark > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > ---------------------------(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 -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
