Greg Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I don't understand why it would be "overkill". Are you saying people
> > would complain because you installed a 25 kB executable that they might
> > not want to use? Just for fun I checked /usr/bin and noticed that I
> > have a "pandoc" executable, weighing 17 MB, that I have never used and I
> > have no idea what is it for.
> >
>
> It's for converting between the various types of text-like markup, i.e.
> reST, LaTex, Markdown, etc.
>
> Anyway, just because the rest of the world has no standards anymore
> doesn't mean we shouldn't. The changes Bruce has made recently have
> gotten this tool to where its output is starting to be readable and
> reliable. The sort of people who want to run this will certainly be
> fine with installing contrib to do it, because they may want to have
> things like pgbench too. There's really not enough demand for this to
> pollute the default server install footprint with any overhead from this
> tool, either in bytes or increased tool name squatting. And the fact
> that it's still a little rough around the edges nudges away from the
> standard server package too.
>
> Install in contrib as pg_test_fsync and I think you'll achieve the
> optimal subset of people who can be made happy here. Not having it
> packaged at all before wasn't a big deal, because it was so hard to
> collect good data from only developer-level people were doing it
> anyway. Now that it is starting to be more useful in that role for less
> experienced users, we need to make it easier for more people to run it,
> to collect feedback toward further improving its quality.
OK, I am ready to move test_fsync to /contrib. Is pg_test_fsync the
best name? pg_check_fsync? pg_fsync_performance? pg_verify_fsync?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
