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 12:18:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 6.1.2013 10:35, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> 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.
> Ok, I'm with you ("-q" and along with adding the elapsed/remaining
> fields to the original logging).

Great, attached is a patch that does that.


Attachment: pgbench-logging-v8.patch
Description: text/plain (5.0 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2013-01-06 16:29:17
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2013-01-06 10:14:18
Subject: Re: question: foreign key constraints and AccessExclusive locks

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