From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Asif Rehman <asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench - allow to create partitioned tables |
Date: | 2019-09-13 12:55:02 |
Message-ID: | 20190913125502.GA7281@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Sep-13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:50 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> > >>> Is there a reason why we treat "partitions = 0" as a valid value?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. It is an explicit "do not create partitioned tables", which differ
> > >> from 1 which says "create a partitionned table with just one partition".
> > >
> > > Why would anyone want to use --partitions option in the first case
> > > ("do not create partitioned tables")?
> >
> > Having an explicit value for the default is generally a good idea, eg for
> > a script to tests various partitioning settings:
> >
> > for nparts in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ; do
> > pgbench -i --partitions=$nparts ... ;
> > ...
> > done
> >
> > Otherwise you would need significant kludging to add/remove the option.
> > Allowing 0 does not harm anyone.
> >
> > Now if the consensus is to remove an explicit 0, it is simple enough to
> > change it, but my opinion is that it is better to have it.
>
> Fair enough, let us see if anyone else wants to weigh in.
It seems convenient UI -- I vote to keep it.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2019-09-13 13:05:31 | Re: [PATCH] Speedup truncates of relation forks |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-09-13 12:51:30 | Re: [PATCH] Speedup truncates of relation forks |