| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench vs. SERIALIZABLE |
| Date: | 2013-05-19 00:08:27 |
| Message-ID: | 519817FB.2010800@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-05-19 00:03, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> My thinking is that what pgbench should do is:
>> * track an error count
>> * if it finds an error, don't increment the transaction count, but do
>> increment the error count.
>> * then continue to the next transaction.
>>
>> Does that seem like the right approach?
>
> Should it give up trying under some conditions, say there are more errors
> than transactions?
I don't really see the point of that. I can't think of a scenario where
you would get too many serialization errors to even finish the pgbench test.
At any rate, as proposed, this would fail horribly if the very first
transaction fails, or the second transaction fails twice, etc..
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2013-05-19 01:38:40 | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-05-18 22:03:31 | Re: pgbench vs. SERIALIZABLE |