Re: pgbench -f and vacuum
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench -f and vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAApHDvpLk2+E7dV+3Oiwc-J12wrrJMDx2MSyUkdroXuNF_-fVQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench -f and vacuum (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench -f and vacuum
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 December 2014 at 04:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
> Currently pgbench -f (run custom script) executes vacuum against
> pgbench_* tables before stating bench marking if -n (or --no-vacuum)
> is not specified. If those tables do not exist, pgbench fails. To
> prevent this, -n must be specified. For me this behavior seems insane
> because "-f" does not necessarily suppose the existence of the
> pgbench_* tables. Attached patch prevents pgbench from exiting even
> if those tables do not exist.
I don't particularly care for this approach. I think if we want to
do something about this, we should just make -f imply -n. Although
really, given the lack of complaints so far, it seems like people
manage to deal with this state of affairs just fine. Do we really
need to do anything?
I also find this weird vacuum non existing tables rather bizarre. I think the first time I ever used pgbench I was confronted by the pgbench* tables not existing, despite the fact that I was trying to run my own script. Looking at --help it mentioned nothing about the pgbench_* tables, so I was pretty confused until I opened up the online docs.
I'm not really a fan of how this is done in the proposed patch, I'd vote for either skipping vacuum if -f is specified, or just doing a database wide vacuum in that case. Though, that might surprise a few people, so maybe the first option is better.
Regards
David Rowley
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: