| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results |
| Date: | 2006-08-18 00:33:58 |
| Message-ID: | 995.1155861238@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:09:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I have had an idea for some time that is actually much simpler -- just
>> launch several backends at once to do different things, and randomly
>> send SIGSTOP and SIGCONT to each. If they keep doing whatever they are
>> doing in infinite loops, and you leave it enough time, it's very likely
>> that you'll get problems if the concurrent locking (or whatever) is not
>> right.
> This is probably worth doing as well, since it would simulate what an
> IO-bound system would look like.
While that might be useful for testing, it'd absolutely suck for
debugging, because of the difficulty of reproducing a problem :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-08-18 00:50:29 | Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-18 00:20:22 | Re: BugTracker (Was: Re: 8.2 features status) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-08-18 00:50:29 | Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes |
| Previous Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2006-08-18 00:15:59 | Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes |