Re: pgbench throttling latency limit
От | Rukh Meski |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADB9FDfRLfZ2V9JM4TdfEWgy8_WorThBOzaanCj5Z8rw8e5F5Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench throttling latency limit
Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Fabien, On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > Find attached a new version: > - fix dropped percent computation in the final report > - simplify progress report code I have reviewed this patch. Is the patch in a patch format which has context? Yes. Does it apply cleanly to the current git master? Yes. Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc? Yes. Does the patch actually implement that? Yes. Do we want that? I think we do, yes. Do we already have it? No. Are there dangers? None that I can see. Does the feature work as advertised? Almost, see below. Are there corner cases the author has failed to consider? None that I can see. Are there any assertion failures or crashes? No. I can't make the -L option work at all. If I do this: ./pgbench -R 100 -L 1 I get: pgbench: invalid option -- L Which appears to be caused by the fact that the call to getopt_long() has not been updated to reflect the new parameter. Also this part: + " -L, --limit=NUM under throttling (--rate), skip transactions that\n" + " far behind schedule in ms (default: do not skip)\n" I would suggest rewording this to something like "skip transactions that are more than NUM milliseconds behind schedule (default: do not skip)". Marking Waiting for Author until these small issues have been fixed. Thanks, ♜
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: