| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: getting rid of "thread fork emulation" in pgbench? |
| Date: | 2015-03-29 23:54:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-pw03v_zKqZUpC=to_4tM+-uXUs67OqAn2vi=d7ooQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> Now if we have threads, it is simpler (if the overhead is reasonable) that
> threads share a file handle and just generate one file, so there is no
> merging.
I really, really wish you'd stop arguing against the patch to allow
merging of pgbench logs in this basis. There may or may not be other
reasons to reject that patch, but arguing that we can or should reject
it because of the hypothetical possibility that sharing a file handle
will work out just isn't right. People who work hard to develop a
patch that does something useful don't deserve to have it kicked to
the curb because someone can imagine a development path that would
eventually obsolete it. That patch deserves to be evaluated on its
own merits.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-30 00:02:06 | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-29 22:16:50 | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |