On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:06:50PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > 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.
The kind of stuff I have in mind is regression tests. As with coverage and Dtrace, they might not be the ones that get run by default, but right now, we have no real way in the regression tests to test concurrency issues at all, as far as I know, so it would be good to have some way to catch this stuff. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
