| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrency testing |
| Date: | 2009-10-08 00:06:50 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0910072003060.28103@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I don't find this a compelling argument against concurrent psql. Sure
> there are things you can't do with it, but it doesn't mean it's not
> useful. Are we going to need further tools to find "the good concurrent
> bugs"? No doubt.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing against concurrent psql being useful.
Certainly it is. I was just suggesting that the scale of issues it can be
useful for is still pretty limited, and that accordingly I found my time
better spent working on a higher-level solution that didn't need C-psql
anyway. Whether C-psql is sufficient for what David had in mind I can't
say.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-10-08 00:14:20 | Re: Feature Suggestion: PL/Js |
| Previous Message | Kiswono Prayogo | 2009-10-08 00:06:19 | Re: Feature Suggestion: PL/Js |