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 05:21:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 6.1.2013 05:07, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> 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.
> In addition to this, I'd suggest to add checking -q is only possible
> with -i option since without -i, -q is meaningless.


>> 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.
> If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more,
> since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the
> former is printed every 10000 lines while the latter is every 5
> seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do you think?

AFAIK the "5 second" logging is much quieter in most cases (and a bit
more verbose when the initialization gets very slower), so I think the
"quiet" logging is not a bad match although maybe there's a better name.

This change (adding the elapsed/remaining fields to the original loggin)
would be consistent with this name, because considering a single line,
the "-q" is more verbose right now.

So I'd stick with the "-q" option and added the fields to the original
logging. But I'm not opposing a different name, I just can't think of a
better one.


Attachment: pgbench-logging-v7.patch
Description: text/plain (4.7 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2013-01-06 09:35:47
Subject: Re: too much pgbench init output
Previous:From: Amit kapilaDate: 2013-01-06 04:56:11
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group