Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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.
Well, this is Greg Smith's text:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01717.php> Might be some value for determining things like what
theoptimal WAL > block size to use is. All these tests are kind of hard to use > effectively still, I'm not sure if
it'stime to start trimming tests yet > until we've made more progress on interpreting results first.
so I figured the test should be complete; a partial test is pretty
useless. What I am thinking is that the program should just run the
first test by default (to choose wal_sync_method), and add a -v option
to run the additional tests. Yes?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +