Hi, Febien
Thanks for your fast response and fix! I set your patch ready for commiter now.
(2013/07/01 19:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I have small comments. I think that 'lat' is not generally abbreviation of
>> 'latency'. But I don't know good abbreviation. If you have any good
>> abbreviation, please send us revise version.
>
> I needed something short, because I may add a "lag" time as well under
> throttling. No better idea.
OK. We have no idea:-)
>> And, please fix under following code. It might be degrade by past your patches.
>
> Done. I've also put the long option definition at its right place in the
> alphabetical order.
Oh, I leak it in my review. Thanks.
>> I also test your throttle patch. My impression of this patch is good, but it
>> does not necessary to execute with progress option. [...]
>
> I agree that it is not necessary. However for my use case it would be useful to
> have both throttling & progress at the same time, in particular to check the
> effect of other concurrent operations (eg. pg_dump, pg_basebackup) while a bench
> is running.
It is very dicreet checking! I think it is important for momentous systems, too.
If I have time for reviewing throttle patch for more detail, I will send you
comment. I hope both patches are commited.
Best regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center