Re: too much pgbench init output
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: too much pgbench init output |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50E909D4.1000308@fuzzy.cz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: too much pgbench init output (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: too much pgbench init output
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6.1.2013 05:07, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> On 6.1.2013 03:03, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> As a committer, I have looked into the patch. I noticed two things: >>> >>> 1) In the help you put '-q' option into "Common options" section. I >>> think this should be moved to "Initialization options" section because >>> the option is only applied while initializing. >> >> Good point, moved. > > In addition to this, I'd suggest to add checking -q is only possible > with -i option since without -i, -q is meaningless. Done. >> There's one more thing I've just noticed - the original version of the >> patch simply removed the old logging, but this one keeps both old and >> quiet logging. But the old logging still uses this: >> >> fprintf(stderr, "%d of %d tuples (%d%%) done.\n", .... >> >> while the new logging does this >> >> fprintf(stderr, "%d of %d tuples (%d%%) done (elapsed %.2f s, >> remaining %.2f s).\n", >> >> i.e. it prints additional info about elapsed/estimated time. Do we want >> to keep it this way (i.e. not to mess with the old logging) or do we >> want to add these new fields to the old logging too? >> >> I suggest to add it to the old logging, to keep the log messages the >> same, the only difference being the logging frequency. > > If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more, > since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the > former is printed every 10000 lines while the latter is every 5 > seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do you think? AFAIK the "5 second" logging is much quieter in most cases (and a bit more verbose when the initialization gets very slower), so I think the "quiet" logging is not a bad match although maybe there's a better name. This change (adding the elapsed/remaining fields to the original loggin) would be consistent with this name, because considering a single line, the "-q" is more verbose right now. So I'd stick with the "-q" option and added the fields to the original logging. But I'm not opposing a different name, I just can't think of a better one. Tomas
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: