Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> >>Probably it is possible, but it will sure need more that one little
> >>condition to be achieved... I do not think that introducing a non trivial
> >>distributed election algorithm involving locks and so would be a good
> >>decision for this very little matter.
> >>
> >>My advice is "keep it simple".
> >>
> >>If this is a blocker, I can sure write such an algorithm, when I have some
> >>spare time, but I'm not sure that the purpose is worth it.
> >
> >You're probably right, but TBH I'm pretty unsure about this whole thing.
>
> If the question is "is there a bug", then answer is yes. The progress report
> may disappear if thread 0 happens to stop, even of all other threads go on.
> Obviously it only concerns slow queries, but there is no reason why pgbench
> should not work with slow queries. I can imagin good reason to do that, say
> to check the impact of such queries on an OLTP load.
>
> The bug can be kept instead, and it can be called a feature.
No, I agree that this looks like a bug and that we should fix it; for
example, if all connections from thread 0 terminate for some reason,
there will be no more reports, even if the other threads continue.
That's bad too.
What I'm unsure about is the proposed fix.
> >I will leave it alone for the time being.
>
> Maybe you could consider pushing the first part of the patch, which stops if
> a transaction is scheduled after the end of the run? Or is this part
> bothering you as well?
So there are *two* bugs here?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services