From: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, rulyox(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error on pgbench logs |
Date: | 2021-06-12 18:27:42 |
Message-ID: | 20210613032742.6f2ba712e8d86b8db71866f2@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 23:29:30 +0200 (CEST)
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> Bonjour Michaël,
>
> Here is an updated patch. While having a look at Kyotaro-san patch, I
> noticed that the aggregate stuff did not print the last aggregate. I think
> that it is a side effect of switching the precision from per-second to
> per-µs. I've done an attempt at also fixing that which seems to work.
This is just out of curiosity.
+ while ((next = agg->start_time + agg_interval * INT64CONST(1000000)) <= now)
I can find the similar code to convert "seconds" to "us" using casting like
end_time = threads[0].create_time + (int64) 1000000 * duration;
or
next_report = last_report + (int64) 1000000 * progress;
Is there a reason use INT64CONST instead of (int64)? Do these imply the same effect?
Sorry, if this is a dumb question...
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-12 18:27:43 | Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination |
Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2021-06-12 18:07:51 | Re: Error on pgbench logs |