Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
Date
Msg-id 373.1525981024@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-05-10 12:18:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Next question is what to do with this.  Do we want to sit on it till
>> v12, or sneak it in now?

> Is there a decent argument for sneaking it in? I don't really have an
> opinion. I don't think it'd really be arguable that this'll make testing
> meaningfully faster. OTOH, it's fresh in your mind (which can be said
> about a lot of patches obviously).

Yeah, I had hoped that this might make a noticeable difference on slower
buildfarm animals, but some testing shows that it's more likely to be
barely above the noise floor.

OTOH, in view of Josh's old gripe, maybe it could be argued to be a bug
fix, at least on platforms where it does anything.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ugprade test failure on data set with column with defaultvalue with type bit/varbit
Next
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4