Re: [Review] pgbench duration option
От | Brendan Jurd |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Review] pgbench duration option |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 37ed240d0809050845x73789ba7m725d10d976958293@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench duration option (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [Review] pgbench duration option
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello again, I received the following email from a helpful fellow off-list, pointing out an error in my review: On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Ragnar <gnari@hive.is> wrote: > On fös, 2008-09-05 at 15:07 +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: >> Wouldn't this be better written as: >> >> if ((duration > 0 && timer_exceeded) || st->cnt >= nxacts) >> { >> <stop> >> } > > sorry, but these do not lok as the same thing to me. > > in the first variant there will not be a stop if > (duration > 0) and NOT (timer_exceeded) and (st->cnt >= nxacts) > but in the second variant there will. > > admittedly, i have no idea if that situation can occur. > > gnari > gnari is right. Looking closer I see that nxacts defaults to 10 in the absence of a -t option, so my version of the code would end up stopping when the run reaches 10 transactions, even if the user has specified a -T option. Sorry for the error. The (duration > 0) test does in fact need to be separate. Thanks for the catch, gnari. Cheers, BJ
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: