Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization
Date: 2017-08-31 07:35:20
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1708310903290.15830@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


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.

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:
...".

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)

Also update the error message in checkCustomCommands to "ctgvpf".

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

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"?

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

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-08-31 07:36:54 Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-08-31 07:23:40 Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands