From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd) |
Date: | 2018-07-18 14:44:10 |
Message-ID: | 2db34429-06db-e049-feaa-2d8c9483559b@iki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/07/18 16:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I don't think you want to wait in that situation. I think we should wait at
>> the end only if there some threads still alive, with nothing to do only
>> because of --rate.
>
> Yep. The attached version does only the tailing stuff under -R and not all
> threads were stopped on errors, with comments to tell about the why.
Hmm. How about we just remove this special case from doCustom():
> case CSTATE_START_THROTTLE:
> ...
>
> /*
> * stop client if next transaction is beyond pgbench end of
> * execution
> */
> if (duration > 0 && st->txn_scheduled > end_time)
> {
> st->state = CSTATE_FINISHED;
> break;
> }
That way, we let the client go into CSTATE_THROTTLE state, even though
we know that the timer will run out before we reach txn_scheduled. Then
it will work the way we want, right? One small difference is that then
the clients will keep the connections open longer, until the timer
expires, but I think that's reasonable. Less surprising than the current
behavior, even.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-18 14:56:31 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2018-07-18 14:35:56 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |