Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgbench -T isn't a hard cutoff.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "mark" <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgbench -T isn't a hard cutoff.
Date: 2011-08-27 04:56:24
Message-ID: 11123.1314420984@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
"mark" <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Expected behavior would be -T would mean a hard cut off. 

Why would you expect that?

What I'd expect is that each transaction would be run to completion,
which would mean that -T cannot possibly be exact.  Even if it were,
what's your notion of "exact"?  Clock resolutions are different on
different platforms.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2011-08-29 03:22:54
Subject: Re: pgbench -T isn't a hard cutoff.
Previous:From: markDate: 2011-08-27 03:13:10
Subject: pgbench -T isn't a hard cutoff.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group