Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> >>> I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method
> >>> values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes.
>
> >> Given that it was unclear whether the first such test was of any value,
> >> why are you slowing down the program by adding more?
>
> > Greg Smith indicated it has value, so I made it more complete. No?
>
> My recollection of that discussion is a bit different: there wasn't a
> clear-cut reason to rip it out. But the more tests you add to
> test_fsync, the less useful it becomes.
Well, this is Greg Smith's text:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01717.php
> Might be some value for determining things like what the optimal WAL
> block size to use is. All these tests are kind of hard to use
> effectively still, I'm not sure if it's time to start trimming tests
yet
> until we've made more progress on interpreting results first.
so I figured the test should be complete; a partial test is pretty
useless. What I am thinking is that the program should just run the
first test by default (to choose wal_sync_method), and add a -v option
to run the additional tests. Yes?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
