| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: too much pgbench init output |
| Date: | 2012-09-05 03:44:40 |
| Message-ID: | 2825.1346816680@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Actually, this whole things seems like a solution in search of a
>> problem to me. We just reduced the verbosity of pgbench -i tenfold in
>> the very recent past - I would have thought that enough to address
>> this problem. But maybe not.
> The problem is that
> a) It blasts out too much output and everything scrolls off the screen,
> and
Robert evidently thinks that the verbosity of the output is a feature
not a bug. I'm not convinced that eyeballing pgbench output is a
particularly useful way to measure checkpoint stalls, but ...
> b) There is no indication of where the end is.
Well, surely *that* can be fixed in a noncontroversial way: just
print "M/N tuples done", where N is the target.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-05 04:02:24 | Re: 9.2 pg_upgrade regression tests on WIndows |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-05 03:39:49 | Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows |