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

Re: pgbench--new transaction type

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgbench--new transaction type
Date: 2011-06-30 04:13:21
Message-ID: BANLkTimuyDhL+cuvvSf7M7wY1siJjoZqXQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
...
>
> Things to fix in the patch before it would be a commit candidate:
>
> -Adjust the loop size/name, per above
> -Reformat some of the longer lines to try and respect the implied right
> margin in the code formatting
> -Don't include the "plgsql function created." line unless in debugging mode.
> -Add the docs.  Focus on how this measures how fast the database can execute
> SELECT statements using server-side code.  An explanation that the
> "transaction" block size is 512 is important to share.  It also needs a
> warning that time based runs ("-T") may have to wait for a block to finish
> and go beyond its normally expected end time.
> -The word "via" in the "transaction type" output description is probably not
> the best choice.  Changing to "SELECT only using PL/pgSQL" would translate
> better, and follow the standard case use for the name of that language.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the review.  I've realized that I will not get a chance to
incorporate these changes during this commitfest due to work and
travel schedules, so I have changed it to "Returned with Feedback" and
will update it for the next commitfest.

One more thought I had, would it make sense to change this from the
creation of a PL/pgSQL permanent function to instead use the recently
added DO anonymous block syntax?  I think that would be somewhat
cleaner about leaving cruft behind in the database.  But it would
increase the overhead of each outer execution, and would also mean
that it would not be backwards compatible to run against servers
before 9.0

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2011-06-30 04:31:35
Subject: Re: hint bit cache v6
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-06-30 04:06:44
Subject: Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby

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