On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:28:54PM -0700, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On Monday 22 August 2005 13:13, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > Of course we could use pgbench for this instead of dbt*, but ISTM that
> > dbt is a better choice since it's useful for a broader set of people.
> > The downside is it requir
On Monday 22 August 2005 13:13, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 06:29:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Incidentally, use of a different SCM system might well make
> > > constructing test sets more simple. Imagine, say, in SVN, you would
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 06:29:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Incidentally, use of a different SCM system might well make
> > constructing test sets more simple. Imagine, say, in SVN, you would
> > create a branch called "test-set--mm-dd" or some
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Incidentally, use of a different SCM system might well make
constructing test sets more simple. Imagine, say, in SVN, you would
create a branch called "test-set--mm-dd" or some such, make your
changes there, add a test scrip
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Incidentally, use of a different SCM system might well make
> constructing test sets more simple. Imagine, say, in SVN, you would
> create a branch called "test-set--mm-dd" or some such, make your
> changes there, add a test script under some wel
A little while ago I rather rashly opined that we could extend the
buildfarm to do (optional) performance testing. After thinking about it
for some time I now think that might not be such a good idea. We can
certainly leverage a lot of the technology used and experience gained in
building the
