Re: pgbench more operators & functions

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> It already is a script, it's just hardwired as a string constant in
>> pgbench.c rather than being a separate file. I think Fabien is
>> suggesting that it could be changed to more nearly approximate the
>> actual TPC-B spec, but IMO that would be a seriously bad idea because
>> it would invalidate all cross-version performance comparisons. We
>> decided years ago that the default script is what it is and we aren't
>> going to change it to try to match TPC-B more exactly.

> If we could replicate what the hardwired script does in an external
> script, keeping that as the default, and then provide a 'Closer to
> TPC-B' script, then I'm all for that.

I've got no objection to a more-nearly-TPC-B script as an option.
But why do you feel the need to pull the default script out into
a separate file? Seems to me that just adds maintenance complexity,
and the need for pgbench to have a notion of a library directory,
for little gain.

regards, tom lane