From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allowing line-continuation in pgbench custom scripts |
Date: | 2014-05-26 15:52:03 |
Message-ID: | 26629.1401119523@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> IMO it's better if we can write SQL in multiples line *without* a tailing
>>> escape character, like psql's input file.
>> Yeah, that would be much cleaner.
> But that would require duplicating the lexing stuff to determine where
> quotes are and where commands end. There are already some cases where
> pgbench itself is the bottleneck; adding a lexing step would be more
> expensive, no? Whereas simply detecting line continuations would be
> cheaper.
Well, we only parse the script file(s) once at run start, and that time
isn't included in the TPS timing, so I don't think performance is really
an issue here. But yeah, the amount of code that would have to be
duplicated out of psql is pretty daunting --- it'd be a maintenance
nightmare, for what seems like not a lot of gain. There would also
be a compatibility issue if we went this way, because existing scripts
that haven't bothered with semicolon line terminators would break.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2014-05-26 16:11:04 | Re: Priority table or Cache table |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-26 15:44:31 | Re: Allowing line-continuation in pgbench custom scripts |