Re: pgbench -f and vacuum

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But as far as what has been discussed on the central topic of this thread, I
> think that doing the vacuum and making the failure for non-existent tables
> be non-fatal when -f is provided would be an improvement. Or maybe just
> making it non-fatal at all times--if the table is needed and not present,
> the session will fail quite soon anyway. I don't see the other changes as
> being improvements. I would rather just learn to add the -n when I use -f
> and don't have the default tables in place, than have to learn new methods
> for saying "no really, I left -n off on purpose" when I have a custom file
> which does use the default tables and I want them vacuumed.

So, discussion seems to have died off here. I think what Jeff is
proposing here is a reasonable compromise. Patch for that attached.

Objections?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company