Re: pgbench -f and vacuum

On 2014-12-15 10:55:30 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > > Currently pgbench -f (run custom script) executes vacuum against
> > > pgbench_* tables before stating bench marking if -n (or --no-vacuum)
> > > is not specified. If those tables do not exist, pgbench fails. To
> > > prevent this, -n must be specified. For me this behavior seems insane
> > > because "-f" does not necessarily suppose the existence of the
> > > pgbench_* tables. Attached patch prevents pgbench from exiting even
> > > if those tables do not exist.
> >
> > I don't particularly care for this approach. I think if we want to
> > do something about this, we should just make -f imply -n. Although
> > really, given the lack of complaints so far, it seems like people
> > manage to deal with this state of affairs just fine. Do we really
> > need to do anything?
> >
>
> I hereby complain about this.
>
> It has bugged me several times, and having the errors be non-fatal when -f
> was given was the best (easy) thing I could come up with as well, but I was
> too lazy to actually write the code.

Same here. I vote for making -f imply -n as well.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services