* patched with minor warning * compilable cleanly * zero impact on PostgreSQL server functionality * it does what was in proposal ** change 5sec progress as default (instead no progress) ** finalise a rate limit support - fixes a latency calculation
Just a point about the motivation: the rationale for having a continuous progress report is that benchmarking is subject to possibly long warmup times, and thus a test may have to run for hours so as to be significant. I find running a command for hours without any hint about what is going on quite annoying.
* code is clean * documentation is included * there is no voices against this patch and this patch increases a pgbench usability/
I have only one question. When I tested this patch with throttling I got a very similar values of lag.
Yep. That is just good!
What is sense, or what is semantic of this value?
The "lag" measures the stochastic processus health. Actually, it measures how far behind schedule the clients are when performing throttled transactions. If it was to increase, that would mean that something is amiss, possibly not enough client threads or other issues. If it is small, then all is well.
Should be printed this value in this form on every row? We can print some warning when lag is higher than latency instead?
Hmmm... what is important is when the lag changes values.
Generally one would indeed expect that to be smaller than the latency, but that is not really possible when transaction are very fast, say under "-S" with read-only queries that hit the memory cache.
Also the problem with printing warnings is that it changes the output format, but it seems to me more useful to print the value, so that it can be processed automatically and simply.
Also, from a remote client perspective, say a web application, the overall latency is the lag plus the transaction latency: you first wait to get through the database (lag), and then you can perform your transaction (latency).
Or we can use this value, but it should be better documented, please.