|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Asif Rehman <asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> Ok. That makes sense. The output reports "including connections
>> establishing" and "excluding connections establishing" regardless with
>> -C, so we should measure delays in the same way.
> On second thought, it's more reasonable and less confusing not to
> measure the disconnection delays at all? Since whether the benchmark result
> should include the disconnection delays or not is not undocumented,
> probably we cannot say strongly the current behavior (i.e., the disconnection
> delays are not measured) is a bug. Also since the result has not included
> the disconnection delays so far, the proposed change might slightly change
> the benchmark numbers reported, which might confuse the users.
> ISTM that at least it's unwise to change long-stable branches for this...
My 0.02€: From a benchmarking perspective, ISTM that it makes sense to
include disconnection times, which are clearly linked to connections,
especially with -C. So I'd rather have the more meaningful figure even at
the price of a small change in an undocumented feature.
|Next Message||Yugo NAGATA||2021-08-31 05:15:10||Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2021-08-31 04:29:49||Re: prevent immature WAL streaming|