| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: test_fsync label adjustments |
| Date: | 2011-01-18 23:06:09 |
| Message-ID: | 6056.1295391969@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 23:08:03 | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-01-18 23:05:07 | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |