On 2019-Sep-27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thanks, Alvaro, both seem like good suggestions to me. However, there
> are a few more things where your feedback can help:
> a. With new options, we will partition pgbench_accounts and the
> reason is that because that is the largest table. Do we need to be
> explicit about the reason in docs?
Hmm, I would document what is it that we do, and stop there without
explaining why. Unless you have concrete reasons to want the reason
documented?
> b. I am not comfortable with test modification in
> 001_pgbench_with_server.pl. Basically, it doesn't seem like we should
> modify the existing test to use non-default tablespaces as part of
> this patch. It might be a good idea in general, but I am not sure
> doing as part of this patch is a good idea as there is no big value
> addition with that modification as far as this patch is concerned.
> OTOH, as such there is no harm in testing with non-default
> tablespaces.
Yeah, this change certainly is out of place in this patch.
> The other thing is that the query used in patch to fetch partition
> information seems correct to me, but maybe there is a better way to
> get that information.
I hadn't looked at that, but yeah it seems that it should be using
pg_partition_tree().
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services