> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> Would certainly be nice. Realistically, getting good automated >>> performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me >>> for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile open source >>> performance test platforms currently don't exist. That money has never >>> been available; maybe I should do a kickstarter. > >> So in order to get *testing* we need to pay somebody. But to build a great >> database server, we can rely on volunteer efforts or sponsorship from >> companies who are interested in moving the project forward? > > And even more to the point, volunteers to reinvent the kernel I/O stack > can be found on every street corner? And those volunteers won't need any > test scaffolding to be sure that *their* version never has performance > regressions? (Well, no, they won't, because no such thing will ever be > built. But we do need better test scaffolding for real problems.)
Can we avoid the Linux kernel problem by simply increasing our shared buffer size, say up to 80% of memory? -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
