Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Borodin
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
Date
Msg-id CAJEAwVFMYZcHQYDZHwR4QKdYvV9mmij=24L4gtc46AGZ0HV9rA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal  (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
2016-12-21 20:42 GMT+05:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> This whole subthread seems like a distraction to me.  I find it hard
> to believe that this test case would be stable enough to survive the
> buildfarm where, don't forget, we have things like
> CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS machines where queries take 100x longer to run.
> But even if it is, surely we can pick a less contrived test case.  So
> why worry about this?

David Fetter's test is deterministic and shall pass no matter how slow
and unpredictable perfromance is on a server.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink and postgres_fdw