Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

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:
> ...".

Fixed.

> 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".

Fixed.

> Cleanup should have a message when it is executed. I suggest "cleaning
> up...".

Fixed.

> 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
> order"?

Fixed.

>
> case 'I': ISTM that initialize_cmds is necessarily already allocated, thus I
> would not bother to test before pg_free.

Agreed, fixed.

Attached latest patch. Please review it.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center