| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr |
| Cc: | nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |
| Date: | 2021-07-13 04:00:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20210713.130049.878809075484022658.t-ishii@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Or, we should terminate the last cycle of benchmark regardless it is
>>> retrying or not if -T expires. This will make pgbench behaves much
>>> more consistent.
>
> I would tend to agree with this behavior, that is not to start any new
> transaction or transaction attempt once -T has expired.
>
> I'm a little hesitant about how to count and report such unfinished
> because of bench timeout transactions, though. Not counting them seems
> to be the best option.
I agree.
>> Hmmm, indeed this might make the behaviour a bit consistent, but I am
>> not
>> sure such behavioural change benefit users.
>
> The user benefit would be that if they asked for a 100s benchmark,
> pgbench does a reasonable effort not to overshot that?
Right.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com | 2021-07-13 04:13:58 | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Amul Sul | 2021-07-13 03:48:05 | Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb |