| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rukh Meski <rukh(dot)meski(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
| Date: | 2014-09-11 10:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | 54117B53.8030002@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/30/2014 07:16 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>> + if (latency_limit)
>>> + printf("number of transactions above the %.1f ms latency limit: " INT64_FORMAT "\n",
>>> + latency_limit / 1000.0, latency_late);
>>> +
>>
>> Any reason not to report a percentage here?
>
> Yes: I did not thought of it.
>
> Here is a v7, with a percent. I also added a paragraph in the documenation
> about how the latency is computed under throttling, and I tried to reorder
> the reported stuff so that it is more logical.
Now that I've finished the detour and committed and backpatched the
changes to the way latency is calculated, we can get back to this patch.
It needs to be rebased.
How should skipped transactions should be taken into account in the log
file output, with and without aggregation? I assume we'll want to have
some trace of skipped transactions in the logs.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-11 10:46:06 | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-11 10:24:10 | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |