> You don't have to do anything if you don't want to.
Sure:-) What I mean is that I think that this patch is not ripe, and I
understood that some people were suggesting that it could be applied as is
right away. I'm really disagreeing with that.
> I said myself that this needs performance testing of the worst-case
> scenario, one where we would expect this to perform worse than without
> the patch. Then we can look at how bad that effect is, and decide if
> that's acceptable.
Ok, I'm fine with that. It's quite different from "looks ok apply now".
> That said, if you could do that testing, that would be great!
Hmmm. I was not really planing to. On the other hand, I have some scripts
and a small setup that I've been using to test checkpointer flushing, and
it would be easy to start some tests.
>> Having a guc would also help to test the feature with different values
>> than 1.5, which really seems harmful from a math point of view. I'm not
>> sure at all that a power formula is the right approach.
>
> Yeah, a GUC would be helpful in testing this. I'm hoping that we would come
> up with a reasonable formula that would work well enough for everyone that we
> wouldn't need to have a GUC in the final patch, though.
Yep. If it is a guc testing is quite easy and I may run my scripts...
--
Fabien.
