From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench small bug fix |
Date: | 2016-03-04 18:42:29 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1603041935280.11128@sto |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Probably it is possible, but it will sure need more that one little
>> condition to be achieved... I do not think that introducing a non trivial
>> distributed election algorithm involving locks and so would be a good
>> decision for this very little matter.
>>
>> My advice is "keep it simple".
>>
>> If this is a blocker, I can sure write such an algorithm, when I have some
>> spare time, but I'm not sure that the purpose is worth it.
>
> You're probably right, but TBH I'm pretty unsure about this whole thing.
If the question is "is there a bug", then answer is yes. The progress
report may disappear if thread 0 happens to stop, even of all other
threads go on. Obviously it only concerns slow queries, but there is no
reason why pgbench should not work with slow queries. I can imagin good
reason to do that, say to check the impact of such queries on an OLTP
load.
The bug can be kept instead, and it can be called a feature.
> I will leave it alone for the time being.
Maybe you could consider pushing the first part of the patch, which stops
if a transaction is scheduled after the end of the run? Or is this part
bothering you as well?
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-03-04 18:45:45 | Re: pgbench small bug fix |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-03-04 18:41:57 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |