> * Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
>> The first problem is plaform performance, which would be a matter of
>> expanding the buildfarm to include a small set of performance tests ...
>> probably ones based on previously known problems, plus some other simple
>> common operations. The goal here would be to test on as many different
>> machines as possible, rather than getting full coverage of peformance.
I think it's a seriously *bad* idea to expect existing buildfarm members
to produce useful performance data. Very few of them are running on
dedicated machines, and some are deliberately configured with
performance-trashing options. (I think just about all of 'em use
--enable-cassert, but there are some with worse things...)
We can probably share a great deal of the existing buildfarm code and
infrastructure, but the actual members of the p-farm will need to be a
separate collection of machines running different builds.
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> imv, we should be trying to include the above in the regression tests,
> presuming that they can be done in that structure and that they can be
> done 'quickly'.
There's no such thing as a useful performance test that runs quickly
enough to be sane to incorporate in our standard regression tests.
regards, tom lane
