Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS
Date: 2019-03-11 15:59:50
Message-ID: a65a7c22-01f1-4e7d-7af7-12b1901f56ea@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 3/11/19 6:07 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
> <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> wrote:
>> David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> I think some comments in the area to explain the 0th is for the sql
>>> would be a good idea too, that might stop any confusion in the
>>> future. I see that's documented in the struct header comment, but
>>> maybe worth a small note around that error message just to confirm the
>>> - 1 is not a mistake, and neither is the >= MAX_ARGS.
>> I have done this in the updated version of the patch, attached.
>> Setting back to NR.
> The patch looks good to me. I'm happy for it to be marked as ready for
> committer. Fabien, do you want to have another look?
>

I think we've spent enough time on this. Committed with minor changes.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ramanarayana 2019-03-11 16:24:45 Unaccent extension python script Issue in Windows
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2019-03-11 15:19:39 Re: ECPG regression with DECLARE STATEMENT support