Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization
Date: 2017-11-13 17:03:52
Message-ID: 12696.1510592632@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> [ pgbench_custom_initialization_v16.patch ]

I'm starting to review this patch, and I wonder how it is that you
ended up with "c" as the command letter for dropping existing tables.
Seems like "d" for DROP would be much less confusing. I see that at
one point "d" meant the data load step, but since you've gone with
"g" for "generate data" that conflict is gone.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-11-13 17:06:46 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-11-13 16:50:10 Re: Migration to PGLister - After