Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Date: 2013-12-03 23:08:11
Message-ID: 31495.1386112091@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Would certainly be nice. Realistically, getting good automated
>> performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me
>> for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile open source
>> performance test platforms currently don't exist. That money has never
>> been available; maybe I should do a kickstarter.

> So in order to get *testing* we need to pay somebody. But to build a great
> database server, we can rely on volunteer efforts or sponsorship from
> companies who are interested in moving the project forward?

And even more to the point, volunteers to reinvent the kernel I/O stack
can be found on every street corner? And those volunteers won't need any
test scaffolding to be sure that *their* version never has performance
regressions? (Well, no, they won't, because no such thing will ever be
built. But we do need better test scaffolding for real problems.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stas Kelvich 2013-12-03 23:10:37 Re: Cube extension kNN support
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2013-12-03 23:02:12 Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO