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

Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> 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.

> Indeed, you are right. As a reviewer, I can recall that there were some
> hesitations, not sure we ended up with the best possible choice.

OK, will make the appropriate changes.

> Note that if "c" is freed by "d" (drop), then it may be worth considering
> that "t" (table) could be replaced by "c" (create).

I thought about that, but the argument that 'c' might mean different
sorts of create steps (e.g. create index) seemed reasonable. I think
we're best off leaving it as 't' in case of future expansion.

regards, tom lane