Re: Removing useless \. at the end of copy in pgbench

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Removing useless \. at the end of copy in pgbench
Date: 2018-08-29 19:48:13
Message-ID: 20180829194813.xus76xna3z7qjodj@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-08-29 21:42:42 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > What about:
> >
> > """
> > Pgbench requires a PostgreSQL version 8.2 or above server.
> > """
> >
> > Some information is provided...
> >
> > I understood that Tom found that an explicit compatibility note would be
> > welcome, so I provided one. I'm also fine with saying nothing.
>
> Here is a patch with the following accurate information:
>
> """
> In order to run, pgbench requires a PostgreSQL server version 8.2 or above.
> """
>
> 8.2 has been tested by Tom, and is required because of DROP TABLE IF EXISTS
> & CREATE TABLE ... FILLFACTOR, which I pointed out in a mail upthread.
>
> Now if the information is not added to the doc, this is also fine with me.

I'd vote for not adding it. It seems almost guaranteed to get out of
date without anybody noticing so. Maybe that's overly pragmatic, but I
really can't see the harm of not documenting which precise ancient
version pgbench doesn't support anymore...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-08-29 20:16:48 Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-08-29 19:45:27 Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes