From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reporting script runtimes in pg_regress |
Date: | 2019-02-11 08:44:24 |
Message-ID: | 6f1657f9-c58c-ba28-0013-d36a6f6fd246@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/02/2019 22:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>> On 10 Feb 2019, at 04:50, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Does anyone else feel that this is interesting/useful data?
>
>> Absolutely, +1 on this. In Greenplum we print the runtime of the script and
>> the runtime of the diff, both of which have provided useful feedback on where
>> to best spend optimization efforts (the diff time of course being a lot less
>> interesting in upstream postgres due to gpdb having it’s own diff tool to
>> handle segment variability).
>
> Seems like I'm far from the first to think of this --- I wonder why
> nobody submitted a patch before?
Now that I see this in action, it makes the actual test results harder
to identify flying by. I understand the desire to collect this timing
data, but that is a special use case and not relevant to the normal use
of the test suite, which is to see whether the test passes. Can we make
this optional please?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2019-02-11 09:56:45 | Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-11 08:25:24 | Re: BUG #15629: Typo in Documentation |