| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff | 
| Date: | 2016-03-04 18:34:11 | 
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1603041921320.11128@sto | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
>>   *-21.patch does what you suggested above, some hidden awkwardness
>>      but much less that the previous one.
>
> Yeah, I think this is much nicer, don't you agree?
Yep, I said "less awkwarness than previous", a pretty contrived way to say 
better:-)
> However, this is still a bit broken -- you cannot return a stack
> variable from process_file, because the stack goes away once the
> function returns.  You need to malloc it.
That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", and 
why I wrote "some hidden awkwarness".
I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct? 
addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins are static. Or it 
would have to create an on purpose struct, but I then that would be more 
awkwarness, and malloc/free to pass arguments between functions is not 
efficient nor very elegant.
So the "static" option looked like the simplest & most elegant version.
> Also, you forgot to update the comments in process_file,
> process_builtin, etc.
Indeed. v22 attached with better comments.
-- 
Fabien.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size | 
|---|---|---|
| pgbench-script-stats-22.patch | text/x-diff | 16.9 KB | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-03-04 18:41:57 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff | 
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-04 18:27:35 | Re: More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics |