On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 26 September 2016 at 21:52, Vladimir Gordiychuk <fol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>You should rely on time I tests as little as possible. Some of the test >>> hosts are VERY slow. If possible something deterministic should be used. >> >> That's why this changes difficult to verify. Maybe in that case we should >> write benchmark but not integration test? >> In that case we can say, before this changes stopping logical replication >> gets N ms but after apply changes it gets NN ms where NN ms less than N ms. >> Is it available add this kind of benchmark to postgresql? I will be grateful >> for links. > > It's for that reason that I added a message printed only in verbose > mode that pg_recvlogical emits when it's exiting after a > client-initiated copydone. > > You can use the TAP tests, print diag messages, etc. But we generally > want them to run fairly quickly, so big benchmark runs aren't > desirable. You'll notice that I left diag messages in to report the > timing for the results in your tests, I just changed the tests so they > didn't depend on very tight timing for success/failure anymore. > > We don't currently have any automated benchmarking infrastructure.
Which seems like this patch is not complete yet. I am marking it as returned with feedback, but it may be a better idea to move it to next CF once a new version with updated tests shows up. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers