|From:||Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>|
|To:||Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL-development hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Patch to show individual statement latencies in pgbench output|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Aug3, 2010, at 21:16 , Greg Smith wrote:
>> That was a leftover of the trimming and comment skipping logic, which my patch moves to process_command.
> I think there's still a trimming error here--line 195 of the new patch is now removing the declaration of "i" just before it sets it to zero?
Hm, I think it's just the diff thats miss-leading there. It correctly marks the "int i" line as "removed" with a "-", but for some reason marks the "i = 0" line (and its successors) with a "!", although they're removed too, and not modified.
> On the coding standard side, I noticed all your for loops are missing a space between the for and the (; that should get fixed.
> Finally, now that the rest of the patch is looking in good shape and is something I think is worth considering to commit, it's time to work on the documentation SGML.
I've added the "-r" option to the list of pgbench options in pgbench.sgml and also added a short section that shows how the output looks like, similar to how things are done for the "-l" option.
> Also: when generating multiple versions of a patch like this, standard practice is to add something like "-vX" to the naming, so those of us trying to review can keep them straight.
Will do from now on.
Updated patch is attached. I've also pushed this as branch "pgbench_statementlatency" to git://github.com/fgp/postgres.git
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2010-08-04 12:06:37||Re: Develop item from TODO list|
|Previous Message||Dean Rasheed||2010-08-04 11:39:11||Proposal / proof of concept: Triggers on VIEWs|