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

Re: too much pgbench init output

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: too much pgbench init output
Date: 2013-01-06 04:07:21
Message-ID: 20130106.130721.1632322672635269555.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> On 6.1.2013 03:03, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> As a committer, I have looked into the patch. I noticed two things:
>> 
>> 1) In the help you put '-q' option into "Common options" section. I
>> think this should be moved to "Initialization options" section because
>> the option is only applied while initializing.
> 
> Good point, moved.

In addition to this, I'd suggest to add checking -q is only possible
with -i option since without -i, -q is meaningless.

>> 2) Shouldn't a long option for '-q' be provided? Something like
>> '--quiet-progress-logging'?
> 
> I don't think so. Currently pgbench has either short or long option, not
> both (for the same thing). I believe we should stick to this and either
> choose "-q" or "--quiet-logging" but not both.

Ok.

>> 3) No patches for docs found (doc/src/sgml/pgbench.sgml)
> 
> I've added a brief description of the "-q" option into the docs. IMHO
> it's enough but feel free to add some more details.

Good.

> There's one more thing I've just noticed - the original version of the
> patch simply removed the old logging, but this one keeps both old and
> quiet logging. But the old logging still uses this:
> 
>     fprintf(stderr, "%d of %d tuples (%d%%) done.\n", ....
> 
> while the new logging does this
> 
>     fprintf(stderr, "%d of %d tuples (%d%%) done (elapsed %.2f s,
> remaining %.2f s).\n",
> 
> i.e. it prints additional info about elapsed/estimated time. Do we want
> to keep it this way (i.e. not to mess with the old logging) or do we
> want to add these new fields to the old logging too?
> 
> I suggest to add it to the old logging, to keep the log messages the
> same, the only difference being the logging frequency.

If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more,
since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the
former is printed every 10000 lines while the latter is every 5
seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do you think?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Amit kapilaDate: 2013-01-06 04:56:11
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Previous:From: Tomas VondraDate: 2013-01-06 04:03:38
Subject: Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system

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