Re: pgbench more operators & functions

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:

>
> I've got no objection to a more-nearly-TPC-B script as an option.
>>
>
> Good, because adding a "per-spec" tpc-b as an additional builtin option is
> one of my intentions, once pgbench is capable of it.

​Trying to scan the thread as an interested third-party - without hacker
skills...

Maybe consider writing a full patch series that culminates with this
additional builtin option being added as the final patch - breaking out
this (and probably other) "requirements" patches ​separately to aid in
review. The presentation of just "add new stuff that seems useful" opens
too much room for isolated discussion without knowing what the big picture
requires. At worse you'll at least have a working version of a forked
pgbench that can do what you want.

As it stands right now you haven't provided enough context for this patch
and only the social difficulty of actually marking a patch rejected has
prevented its demise in its current form - because while it has interesting
ideas its added maintenance burden for -core without any in-core usage.
But it you make it the first patch in a 3-patch series that implements the
per-spec tpc-b the discussion moves away from these support functions and
into the broader framework in which they are made useful.

My $0.02

David J.