Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>>> On 2/27/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >>>>> I see no reason to implement it if there is no performance gain. > > > >> However, I strongly concur that we need at least some evidence. It could > >> easily be that a misstep in the code, causes a loop over the wrong set > >> and all the performance we thought we would get is invalid, not because > >> of theory or what should happen, but because of actual implementation. > > > > It rather sounds like you're asking for a proof that Simon can write > > bug-free > > code before you allow him to write any code. > > Well wouldn't that be great! :) but no, not quite. I would just like to > see some metrics showing that it is a benefit. Besides the patch needs > to work for the metrics to be run.
I don't understand the great demand for metrics at this point. Once the patch is ready, people can run the patch on their workloads to get real-world metrics. Metrics are only needed before the patch is applied, not before it is discussed. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
