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.
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 |