|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>[...] and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the
> >>script-specifiying argument already read. That strikes me as a very
> >>unintuitive interface.
> >Ok, I understand this "afterward modification" objection.
> >What if the -w would be required *before*, and supply a weight for (the
> >first/maybe all) script(s) specified *afterwards*, so it does not modify
> >something already provided? I think it would be more intuitive, or at
> >least less surprising.
> Here is a v3 which does that. If there is a better idea, do not hesitate!
This seems a moderately reasonable interface to me. There are other
programs that behave in that way, and once you get used to the idea, it
I think for complete consistency we would have to require that -w is
specified for all scripts or none of them. I am not sure if this means
that it's okay to have later scripts use a weight specified for a
previous one (i.e. it's only an error to fail to specify a weight for
options before the first -w), or each -f must have always its own -w
explicitely. In other words,
pg_bench -w2 -f script1.sql -f script2.sql
either script2 has weight 2, or it's an error, depending on what we
pg_bench -f script1.sql -w 2 -fscript2.sql
is always an error.
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Adam Brightwell||2015-07-22 19:42:58||Re: security labels on databases are bad for dump & restore|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2015-07-22 19:20:33||Re: BRIN index and aborted transaction|