From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench - add option to show actual builtin script code |
Date: | 2019-07-16 00:03:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+rDo524pc_psC1DUC2Lvxi+D98cqsBF6foh3VNj7BfWw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 4:20 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> >>> Now the patch is good now.
> >>>
> >>> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
> >
> > Why aren't we instead putting the exact scripts in the documentation?
> > Having to call pgbench with a special flag to get the script text seems
> > a bit odd.
>
> A typical use case I had is to create a new script by modifying an
> existing one for testing or debug. I prefer "command > file.sql ; vi
> file.sql" to hazardous copy-pasting stuff from html pages.
>
> I do not think that it is worth replicating all scripts inside the doc,
> they are not that interesting, especially if more are added. Currently,
> out of the 3 scripts, only one is in the doc, and nobody complained:-)
>
> Now, they could be added to the documentation, but I'd like the option
> anyway.
Committed, after pgindent. Thanks Fabien and Ibrar.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-07-16 00:04:58 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-07-15 23:56:37 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |