Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date
Msg-id 4A7C469E0200002500029693@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote: 
> I remember someone else on the thread saying [...]
> it provided better structure for future enhancements.
Found the reference:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00078.php
This was the email which I thought confirmed that the changes were
worth it, even in the absence of benchmarks showing performance
improvement.  I guess the counter-argument is that so far this has
been framed as a performance patch, and I've seen posts before which
say that we don't accept those without benchmarks to show an actual
performance improvement.  Accepting it on the basis of evidence and
comments so far would, I suppose, put it more in the category of a
refactoring for cleaner code.
Should we leave it to the code committer to make the final call?
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [Pg-migrator-general] Composite types break pg_migrated tables
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Durability?