Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd)
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2db34429-06db-e049-feaa-2d8c9483559b@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd) (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/07/18 16:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I don't think you want to wait in that situation. I think we should wait at
>> the end only if there some threads still alive, with nothing to do only
>> because of --rate.
>
> Yep. The attached version does only the tailing stuff under -R and not all
> threads were stopped on errors, with comments to tell about the why.
Hmm. How about we just remove this special case from doCustom():
> case CSTATE_START_THROTTLE:
> ...
>
> /*
> * stop client if next transaction is beyond pgbench end of
> * execution
> */
> if (duration > 0 && st->txn_scheduled > end_time)
> {
> st->state = CSTATE_FINISHED;
> break;
> }
That way, we let the client go into CSTATE_THROTTLE state, even though
we know that the timer will run out before we reach txn_scheduled. Then
it will work the way we want, right? One small difference is that then
the clients will keep the connections open longer, until the timer
expires, but I think that's reasonable. Less surprising than the current
behavior, even.
- Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: