Re: pgbench -f and vacuum
От | Jeff Janes |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench -f and vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMkU=1zwx7i+rQR-m_ndpep1FNLp0kaHF2ZMDQk1YBFb9p+2EQ@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 Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, 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 hereby complain about this.
It has bugged me several times, and having the errors be non-fatal when -f was given was the best (easy) thing I could come up with as well, but I was too lazy to actually write the code.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: