From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |
Date: | 2016-02-01 07:29:09 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTa5s5tHnAgqToXzitvTmYDyEc_r1wr4FgXHRHF2aB1OA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> Here is a rebase of the 3 remaining parts:
> - 15-c: per script stats
> - 15-d: weighted scripts
> - 15-e: prefix selection for -b
Regarding patch d.
+ /* compute total_weight */
+ for (i = 0; i < num_scripts; i++)
+ total_weight += sql_script[i].weight;
total_weight can overflow :) I don't think that's worth worrying, I am
just noticing that.
+ The provided <replaceable>scriptname</> needs only be an unambiguous
+ prefix of the builtin name, hence <literal>si</> would be enough to
+ select <literal>simple-update</>.
[...]
- if (strncmp(builtin_script[i].name, name,
- strlen(builtin_script[i].name)) == 0)
+ if (strncmp(builtin_script[i].name, name, len) == 0)
I agree with Alvaro here: this should remain unchanged. It seems to be
a rebase mistake.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-01 07:49:47 | Re: Patch: make behavior of all versions of the "isinf" function be similar |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-02-01 07:26:18 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |