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

Re: review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into log

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz, dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org
Subject: Re: review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into log
Date: 2013-01-31 07:05:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> So if my understating is correct, 1)Tomas Vondra commits to work on
>>>> Windows support for 9.4, 2)on the assumption that one of Andrew
>>>> Dunstan, Dave Page or Magnus Hagander will help him in Windows
>>>> development.
>>>> Ok? If so, I can commit the patch for 9.3 without Windows support. If
>>>> not, I will move the patch to next CF (for 9.4).
>>>> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>> +1 for this approach.  I agree with Dave and Magnus that we don't want
>>> Windows to become a second-class platform, but this patch isn't making
>>> it so.  The #ifdef that peeks inside of an instr_time is already
>>> there, and it's not Tomas's fault that nobody has gotten around to
>>> fixing it before now.
>> Right.
>>> OTOH, I think that this sort of thing is quite wrong:
>>> +#ifndef WIN32
>>> +		   "  --aggregate-interval NUM\n"
>>> +		   "               aggregate data over NUM seconds\n"
>>> +#endif
>>> The right approach if this can't be supported on Windows is to still
>>> display the option in the --help output, and to display an error
>>> message if the user tries to use it, saying that it is not currently
>>> supported on Windows.  That fact should also be mentioned in the
>>> documentation.
>> Agreed. This seems to be much better approach.
> Here is the new patch.

Committed (with minor fix).
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: YAMAMOTO TakashiDate: 2013-01-31 07:39:25
Subject: Re: SYSV shared memory vs mmap performance
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2013-01-31 03:41:38
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group