On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> > 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. > Sorry for the changing the status of the patch against to the current status. While going through the recent mails, I thought that there is some disagreement from committer. Thanks for the clarification. Updated status as follows. Moved to next CF with "ready for committer" status. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
