Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YGAoNCBBKr=LoNWDbY6LJDDvMGB9rd9+Ff9dQUS=9+L8A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes
(Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 February 2016 at 03:00, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
I should resurrect Abhijit's patch to allow the isolationtester to talk to multiple servers. We'll want that when we're doing tests like "assert that this change isn't visible on the replica before it becomes visible on the master". (Well, except we violate that one with our funky synchronous_commit implementation...)
I think this further points to the need for more reviewers and less feature pushes. There are fundamental features that we could use, this is one of them. It is certainly more important than say pgLogical or BDR (not that those aren't useful but that we do have external solutions for that problem).
Well, with the pglogical and BDR work most of the work has been along similar lines - getting the infrastructure in place. Commit timestamps, logical decoding, and other features that are useful way beyond pglogical/BDR. Logical decoding in particular is rapidly becoming a really significant feature as people start to see the potential for it in integration and ETL processes.
I'm not sure anyone takes the pglogical downstream submission as a serious attempt at inclusion in 9.6, and even submitting the upstream was significantly a RFC at least as far as 9.6 is concerned. I don't think the downstream submission took any significant time or attention away from other work.
The main result has been useful discussions on remaining pieces needed for DDL replication etc and some greater awareness among others in the community about what's going on in the area. I think that's a generally useful thing.
Oh: another thing that I would like to do is commit the isolation
tests I wrote for the deadlock detector a while back, which nobody has
reviewed either, though Tom and Alvaro seemed reasonably positive
about the concept. Right now, the deadlock.c part of this patch isn't
tested at all by any of our regression test suites, because NOTHING in
deadlock.c is tested by any of our regression test suites. You can
blow it up with dynamite and the regression tests are perfectly happy,
and that's pretty scary.
Test test test. Please commit.
Yeah. Enhancing the isolation tests would be useful. Please commit those changes. Even if they broke something in the isolation tester - which isn't likely - forward movement in test infrastructure is important and we should IMO have a lower bar for committing changes there. They won't directly affect code end users are running.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: