Re: pgbench more operators & functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: pgbench more operators & functions
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.20.1612020716230.8203@lancre
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgbench more operators & functions  (Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pgbench more operators & functions  (Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello Haribabu,

>> Alas, performance testing is quite sensitive to many details:-(

> The current status of the patch and recent mail thread discussion doesn't
> represent the same.

The same what?

The discussion was about a particular test in a particular setting for a 
particular load, the fact that reducing the latency has a limited effect 
in that case is a fact in life. I have produced other settings where the 
effect was very important. The patch has no down side AFAICS.

> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.

Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for 
committer" patch is switched to "return with feedback", as there is 
nothing actionnable, and I've done everything required to improve the 
syntax and implementation, and to justify why these functions are useful.

I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which 
require a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use 
case, including not being limited to the current set of operators.

This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.

-- 
Fabien.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements
Next
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_sequence catalog