Re: too much pgbench init output
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: too much pgbench init output |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50E96B95.6000503@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 10:35, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> 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. > > Ok, I'm with you ("-q" and along with adding the elapsed/remaining > fields to the original logging). Great, attached is a patch that does that. Tomas
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: