|From:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: pgbench--new transaction type|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> On 20.06.2012 21:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On 20 June 2012 18:42, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>>>> I'm sure Jeff submitted this because of the need for a standard test,
>>>> rather than the wish to actually modify pgbench itself.
>>>> Can I suggest that we include a list of standard scripts with pgbench
>>>> for this purpose? These can then be copied alongside the binary when
>>>> we do an install.
>>> I was thinking along similar lines myself. At the least, I think we
>>> can't continue to add a short option for every new test type.
>>> Instead, maybe we could have --test-type=WHATEVER, and perhaps that
>>> then reads whatever.sql from some compiled-in directory. That would
>>> allow us to sanely support a moderately large number of tests.
> We could call the --test-type option -f, and the "compiled-in directory"
> could be the current directory ;-).
Well, that sounds a lot like "let's reject the patch". Which would be
OK with me, I guess, but if the goal is to make it easy for all
developers to run that particular test, I'm not sure that's getting us
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2012-06-20 20:02:15||Re: pg_prewarm|
|Previous Message||Peter Eisentraut||2012-06-20 19:53:43||Re: pg_prewarm|