> Yes, I think that's a good idea. I don't know whether : is the right
> separator; I kind of line @. But that's bikeshedding.
Possible ASCII contenders should avoid shell and filename interaction,
which exclude * ? ! & / < > [ ] . - $ and so on: those that seem to
remain are @ , = : % # +. I like "%" because this is about sharing,
although this is not a percentage.
> I'd actually like to introduce a new pgbench option that selects a
> builtin script by name, so that we can have more than three of them
> without running out of option names (or going insane). So suppose we
> introduce pgbench -b BUILTIN_NAME, where BUILTIN_NAME is initially one
> of these:
> classic, classic-simple-update, classic-select-only
>
> Then you can do pgbench -b classic@1 -b classic-select-only@9 or
> similar to get 10% write, 90% read.
I like this idea, as -b/-f would be symmetric. Prepending classic to the
names does not look necessary. I would suggest "tpcb-like",
"simple-update" & "select-only", or even maybe any prefix. If the bench
scripts could be read from some pg directory instead of being actually
inlined, even more code could be dropped from pgbench.
--
Fabien.