| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomáš Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench -f and vacuum |
| Date: | 2015-05-12 16:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20150512160826.GA30322@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> It's says:
>
> starting vacuum.... ERROR: blah
> ERROR: blah
> ERROR: blah
> done
>
> And then continues on. Sure, that's not the greatest error reporting
> output ever, but what do you expect from pgbench? I think it's clear
> enough what's going on there. The messages appear in quick
> succession, because it doesn't take very long to notice that the table
> isn't there, so it's not like you are sitting there going "wait,
> what?".
>
> If we're going to add something, I like your second suggestion
> "(ignoring this error and continuing anyway)" more than the first one.
> Putting "ignoring:" before the thing you plan to ignore will be
> confusing, I think.
+1 to adding "(ignoring this error and continuing anyway)" and
committing this.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-12 16:23:06 | Re: pgbench -f and vacuum |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-12 15:55:00 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |