|From:||Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> Hello Masahiko-san,
>> [...] Personally I prefer "t" for table creation because "c" for create is
>> a generic word. We might want to have another initialization command that
>> creates something.
> Ok, good point.
> About the patch: applies, compiles, works for me. A few minor comments.
Thank you for dedicated reviewing this patch!
> While re-reading the documentation, I think that it should be "Set custom
> initialization steps". It could be "Require ..." when -I implied -i, but
> since -i is still required the sentence does not seem to apply as such.
> "Destroying any existing tables: ..." -> "Destroy existing pgbench tables:
> I would suggest to add short expanded explanations in the term definition,
> next to the triggering letter, to underline the mnemonic. Something like:
> c (cleanup)
> t (table creation)
> g (generate data)
> v (vacuum)
> p (primary key)
> f (foreign key)
Nice idea, agreed.
> Also update the error message in checkCustomCommands to "ctgvpf".
> Cleanup should have a message when it is executed. I suggest "cleaning
> Maybe add a comment in front of the array tables to say that the order is
> important, something like "tables in reverse foreign key dependencies
> case 'I': ISTM that initialize_cmds is necessarily already allocated, thus I
> would not bother to test before pg_free.
Attached latest patch. Please review it.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Tatsuro Yamada||2017-09-01 06:38:12||Re: CLUSTER command progress monitor|
|Previous Message||Etsuro Fujita||2017-09-01 06:30:36||Re: Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions|