Re: review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into log

Dne 17.01.2013 10:36, Magnus Hagander napsal:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
>>>>> This might be way more than we want to do, but there is an
>>>>> article
>>>>> that describes some techniques for doing what seems to be missing
>>>>> (AIUI):
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx>
>>>> Even this would be doable, I'm afraid it may not fit in 9.3 if we
>>>> think about the current status of CF. So our choice would be:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Postpone the patch to 9.4
>>>>
>>>> 2) Commit the patch in 9.3 without Windows support
>>>>
>>>> I personally am ok with #2. We traditionally avoid particular
>>>> paltform
>>>> specific features on PostgreSQL. However I think the policiy
>>>> could be
>>>> losen for contrib staffs. Also pgbench is just a client program.
>>>> We
>>>> could always use pgbench on UNIX/Linux if we truely need the
>>>> feature.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Fair enough, I was just trying to point out alternatives. We have
>>> committed platform-specific features before now. I hope it doesn't
>>> just get left like this, though.
>
> We have committed platform-specific features before, but generally
> only when it's not *possible* to do them for all platforms. For
> example the posix_fadvise stuff isn't available on Windows at all, so
> there isn't much we can do there.

Maybe, although this platform-dependence already exists in pgbench to
some
extent (the Windows branch is unable to log the timestamps of
transactions).

It would certainly be better if pgbench was able to handle Windows and
Linux equally, but that was not the aim of this patch.

>> Yeah, I hope someone pick this up and propose as a TODO item. In the
>> mean time, I'm going to commit the patch without Windows support
>> unless there's objection.
>
> Perhaps we should actually hold off until someone committs to
> actually
> getting it fixed in the next version? If we do have that, then we can
> commit it as a partial feature, but if we just "hope someone picks it
> up", that's leaving it very loose..

Well, given that I'm an author of that patch, that 'someone' would have
to be me. The problem is I have access to absolutely no Windows
machines,
not mentioning the development tools (and that I have no clue about
it).

I vaguely remember there were people on this list doing Windows
development
on a virtual machine or something. Any interest in working on this /
giving
me some help?

Tomas