Re: [PATCH] add --progress option to pgbench (submission 3)

>> Otherwise, he simplest possible adaptation, if it is required to have the
>> progress feature under fork emulation to pass it, is that under "fork
>> emulation" each processus reports its current progress instead of having a
>> collective summing.
>
> Perhaps that's worth doing.  I agree with Fabien that full support of
> this feature in the process model is more trouble than it's worth,
> though, and I wouldn't scream loudly if we just didn't support it.
> --disable-thread-safety doesn't have to be entirely penalty-free.

Attached is patch version 5.

It includes this solution for fork emulation, one report per thread 
instead of a global report. Some code duplication for that.

It also solves conflicts introduced by the long options patch.

Finally, I've added a latency measure as defended by Mitsumasa. However 
the formula must be updated for the throttling patch.

Maybe I should have submitted a bunch of changes to pgbench in one patch. 
I thought that separating orthogonal things made reviewing simpler so the 
patches were more likely to pass, but I'm not so sure that the other 
strategy would have been that bad.

-- 
Fabien.