| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Koshi Shibagaki (Fujitsu)" <shibagaki(dot)koshi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Refactor pgbench to make future improvements easier |
| Date: | 2026-11-04 16:04:21 |
| Message-ID: | autS5tAQoZWpZQCL@ddolgov-thinkpadt14sgen1.rmtde.csb |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2026 at 06:27:35PM +0100, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> But as I still think refactoring the single-file pgbench.c into
> functional modules is useful for anyone wanting to improve pgbench, so
> here is a patch set to do just that.
I've got stumbled upon this thread and wanted to look in details out of
pure curiosity and without any previous context. Agree with other
commenters regarding the state of this proposal. On top of that the
motivation for splitting pgbench.c seems to be a bit weak to me -- I
don't think a huge source code file is good in any sense, but we've got
some number of those and splitting them only for the sake of making
modules smaller feels a bit pointless.
How about this -- if you feel strong about this patch series, maybe
let's pick up a single feature out of those you want to propose, isolate
any refactoring needed explicitely to support it and go with the feature
as a motivation? I'm not talking about the original patch set from the
first message in this thread, but something much smaller and digestible.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | shihao zhong | 2026-11-04 15:33:23 | Re: [PATCH] Add recovery boundary WAL record for database and tablespace commands |