Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a65a7c22-01f1-4e7d-7af7-12b1901f56ea@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/11/19 6:07 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > <ilmari@ilmari.org> wrote: >> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> I think some comments in the area to explain the 0th is for the sql >>> would be a good idea too, that might stop any confusion in the >>> future. I see that's documented in the struct header comment, but >>> maybe worth a small note around that error message just to confirm the >>> - 1 is not a mistake, and neither is the >= MAX_ARGS. >> I have done this in the updated version of the patch, attached. >> Setting back to NR. > The patch looks good to me. I'm happy for it to be marked as ready for > committer. Fabien, do you want to have another look? > I think we've spent enough time on this. Committed with minor changes. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: