| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Asif Rehman <asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench - allow to create partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2019-09-26 20:57:54 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1909262244440.7473@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Alvaro,
> pgbench's main() is overly long already, and the new code being added
> seems to pollute it even more. Can we split it out into a static
> function that gets placed, say, just below disconnect_all() or maybe
> after runInitSteps?
I agree that refactoring is a good idea, but I do not think it belongs to
this patch. The file is pretty long too, probably some functions could be
moved to distinct files (eg expression evaluation, variable management,
...).
> (Also, we seem to be afraid of function prototypes. Why not move the
> append_fillfactor() to *below* the functions that use it?)
Because we avoid one more line for the function prototype? I try to put
functions in def/use order if possible, especially for small functions
like this one.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2019-09-26 21:02:51 | Re: Standby accepts recovery_target_timeline setting? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-09-26 20:48:30 | Re: Standby accepts recovery_target_timeline setting? |