|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Indeed, yet again, I forgot the attachement:-(
>> I stared at the new test case for a while, and I must say it looks very
>> cryptic. It's not exactly this patch's fault - all the pgbench tests are
>> cryptic -
> Perl is cryptic. Regexprs are cryptic.
>> but I think we need to do something about that before adding any more
>> tests. I'm not sure what exactly, but I'd like them to be more like
>> pg_regress tests, where you have an expected output and you compare it with
>> the actual output. I realize that's not easy, because there are a lot of
>> varying numbers in the output, but we've got to do something.
>> As a good first step, I wish the pgbench() function used named arguments.
>> You would have something like this:
>> my $elapsed = pgbench(
>> test_name => 'pgbench progress',
>> opts => '-T 2 -P 1 -l --aggregate-interval=1'
> I do not like them much in perl because it changes the code significantly,
> but why not. That would be another patch anyway.
> A lighter but efficient option would be to add a few comments on the larger
> calls, see attached.
Please really find the attachement, and do not hesitate to share spare
a few grey cells so that I will not forget about them in the futur:-)
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2019-03-27 13:48:53||Re: jsonpath|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2019-03-27 13:31:52||Re: Fix XML handling with DOCTYPE|