Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: too much pgbench init output

From: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: too much pgbench init output
Date: 2013-01-06 03:13:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 6.1.2013 03:03, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> As a committer, I have looked into the patch. I noticed two things:
> 1) In the help you put '-q' option into "Common options" section. I
> think this should be moved to "Initialization options" section because
> the option is only applied while initializing.

Good point, moved.

> 2) Shouldn't a long option for '-q' be provided? Something like
> '--quiet-progress-logging'?

I don't think so. Currently pgbench has either short or long option, not
both (for the same thing). I believe we should stick to this and either
choose "-q" or "--quiet-logging" but not both.

> 3) No patches for docs found (doc/src/sgml/pgbench.sgml)

I've added a brief description of the "-q" option into the docs. IMHO
it's enough but feel free to add some more details.

There's one more thing I've just noticed - the original version of the
patch simply removed the old logging, but this one keeps both old and
quiet logging. But the old logging still uses this:

    fprintf(stderr, "%d of %d tuples (%d%%) done.\n", ....

while the new logging does this

    fprintf(stderr, "%d of %d tuples (%d%%) done (elapsed %.2f s,
remaining %.2f s).\n",

i.e. it prints additional info about elapsed/estimated time. Do we want
to keep it this way (i.e. not to mess with the old logging) or do we
want to add these new fields to the old logging too?

I suggest to add it to the old logging, to keep the log messages the
same, the only difference being the logging frequency.


Attachment: pgbench-logging-v6.patch
Description: text/plain (4.3 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tomas VondraDate: 2013-01-06 03:35:30
Subject: Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction
Previous:From: Jon NelsonDate: 2013-01-06 03:08:58
Subject: question: foreign key constraints and AccessExclusive locks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group