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

Re: Simulating Clog Contention

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Simulating Clog Contention
Date: 2012-01-30 15:24:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZUk-n4re=Rptuv1LtaPPMFVYR5Kp_GtWiKy+Hnu7Db1Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think that even in normal (non-initialization) usage, this message
>> should be suppressed when the provided scale factor
>> is equal to the pgbench_branches table count.
>
> The attached patch does just that.  There is probably no reason to
> warn people that we are doing what they told us to, but not for the
> reason they think.

In my opinion, a more sensible approach than anything we're doing
right now would be to outright *reject* options that will only be
ignored.  If -s isn't supported except with -i, then trying to specify
-s without -i should just error out at the options-parsing stage,
before we even try to connect to the database.  It's not very helpful
to accept options and then ignore them, and we have many instances of
that right now: initialization-only switches are accepted and ignored
when not initializing, and run-only switches are accepted and ignored
with initializing.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-30 15:26:05
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-01-30 15:18:32
Subject: Re: Group commit, revised

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