Re: pgbench progress report improvements - split 3 v2

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: pgbench progress report improvements - split 3 v2
Date: 2013-09-26 08:31:44
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.02.1309261026510.25745@andorre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> My feelings on the patch split haven't changed; your three bullet points call
> for four separate patches. Conflicting patches are bad, but dependent patches
> are okay;

Indeed, this is the only solution if you do not want one patch. Note that
it will not possible to backtrack one of the patch but the last one
without conflicts.

> just disclose the dependency order. How about this: as a next step,
> please extract just this feature that I listed last Saturday:
>
> Patch (4): Redefine "latency" as reported by pgbench and report "lag" more.
>
> Once that's committed, we can move on to others.

Ok, I'll submit a first part, hopefully today, possibly the one you
suggest, about fixing and extending latency measure under --rate and
reporting it under progress.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2013-09-26 08:35:47 pgbench filler columns
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2013-09-26 07:11:49 Re: [PATCH] bitmap indexes