Re: pgbench -f and vacuum

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > Currently pgbench -f (run custom script) executes vacuum against
> > pgbench_* tables before stating bench marking if -n (or --no-vacuum)
> > is not specified. If those tables do not exist, pgbench fails. To
> > prevent this, -n must be specified. For me this behavior seems insane
> > because "-f" does not necessarily suppose the existence of the
> > pgbench_* tables. Attached patch prevents pgbench from exiting even
> > if those tables do not exist.
>
> I don't particularly care for this approach. I think if we want to
> do something about this, we should just make -f imply -n. Although
> really, given the lack of complaints so far, it seems like people
> manage to deal with this state of affairs just fine. Do we really
> need to do anything?
>

I hereby complain about this.

It has bugged me several times, and having the errors be non-fatal when -f
was given was the best (easy) thing I could come up with as well, but I was
too lazy to actually write the code.

Cheers,

Jeff