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. :)


Would you be up for getting this updated in the 8.3 cycle?

> 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

Reply via email to