From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: pgbench: option delaying queries till connections establishment? |
Date: | 2020-11-07 17:33:27 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2011062034410.1605435@pseudo |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
>> Indeed. I took your next patch with an added explanation. I'm unclear
>> whether proceeding makes much sense though, that is some thread would run
>> the test and other would have aborted. Hmmm.
>
> Your comment looks good, thanks. In the previous version pgbench starts
> benchmarking even if some connections fail. And users can notice the
> connection failure by stderr output. Hence the current specification may
> be enough.
Usually I run many pgbench through scripts, so I'm probably not there to
check a lone stderr failure at the beginning if performance figures are
actually reported.
> If you agree, please remove the following lines:
>
> ```
> + * It is unclear whether it is worth doing anything rather than
> + * coldly exiting with an error message.
> ```
I can remove the line, but I strongly believe that reporting performance
figures if some client connection failed thus the bench could not run as
prescribed is a bad behavior. The good news is that it is probably quite
unlikely. So I'd prefer to keep it and possibly submit a patch to change
the behavior.
>> ISTM that there is another patch in the queue which needs barriers to
>> delay some initialization so as to fix a corner case bug, in which case
>> the behavior would be mandatory. The current submission could add an
>> option to skip the barrier synchronization, but I'm not enthousiastic to
>> add an option and remove it shortly later.
>
> Could you tell me which patch you mention? Basically I agree what you say,
> but I want to check it.
Should be this one: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2624/,
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marina Polyakova | 2020-11-07 17:55:19 | Re: pgbench stopped supporting large number of client connections on Windows |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-07 16:57:20 | Rethinking LOCK TABLE's behavior on views |