Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions
Date: 2017-12-22 10:44:47
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1712221134300.7724@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Teodor,

>> replaced -1 by 0xffff.... so that the code is hopefully clearer.
> I changed 0xff constant to ~INT64CONST(0), seems, it's more consistent way.
> Also I remove some whitespaces in exprparse.y. Fixed version in attachment.

Fine, quite readable this way.

> Actually, I prefer to see single scripting implementation in both psql and
> pgbench,

I'll push for the implementations are to share more stuff in the future.

For instance the pgbench-if patch shares the conditional stack
implementation. I intend to move pgbench expression engine as a shared
front-end util, once its capabilites are extended and stable, which is
basically after this patch, so that client side expressions can be used in

Now, psql & pgbench contexts are slightly different, with an interactive
thing which must evaluate on the fly on one side and a scripting thing on
the other, so it would not be easy to share everything or to do everything
the same way.

> but I suppose nobody has a power to do it in foreseen future. And,
> may be, it's not a very good way to invent one script language instead of
> using one of bunch of them, but, again, I'm afraid several months/years
> discussion about how and which one to embed. But scripting is needed now, I
> believe, at least I see several test scenarios which can not be implemented
> with current pgbench and this patch allows to do it.

That is exactly why I'm pushing different things into pgbench (\gset,
\if, ...), to improve capabilities wrt to benchmarking.

> So, I intend to push thish patch in current state. I saw several objections
> from commiters in thread, but, seems, that objections are lifted. Am I right?

I think so.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ildar Musin 2017-12-22 10:54:57 Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2017-12-22 10:09:09 Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions