| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Simulating Clog Contention |
| Date: | 2012-01-19 14:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_V0m4nqcN93WfDwwOEqPL0EAqZ4EUzjm=+-QCn+7w=XuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 January 2012 14:36, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> No doubt this is handy for testing this particular area, but overall I feel
> this is too much of a one-trick pony to include in pgbench.
I don't think that being conservative in accepting pgbench options is
the right way to go. It's already so easy for a non-expert to shoot
themselves in the foot that we don't do ourselves any favours by
carefully weighing the merits of an expert-orientated feature.
Have you ever read the man page for rsync? It's massive, with a huge
number of options, and rsync is supposed to be a tool that's widely
used by sysadmins, not a specialist database benchmarking tool.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-19 15:02:31 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-01-19 14:42:23 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |