|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 | Resend email|
V11 is just a rebase after the reindentation patches.
> 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||Peter Eisentraut||2019-05-23 14:20:57||Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples|
|Previous Message||Fabien COELHO||2019-05-23 14:10:55||Re: pgbench - add \aset to store results of a combined query|