Re: pgbench small bug fix
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench small bug fix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.10.1603032018170.24239@sto обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench small bug fix (Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench small bug fix
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Aleksander, Thanks for the look at the patch. >> time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2 > > On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5. > I'm pretty sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though. Sure. > [...] you should probably write: > > if(someint > 0) Ok. > if(somebool == TRUE) I like "if (somebool)", the "== TRUE" looks like a tautology, and the short version is also the current practice in the project. > Also I suggest to introduce a few new boolean variables with meaningful > names instead of writing all these long expressions right inside of > if( ... ). I agree about the lisibility, but there are semantics issues to consider: if (short-A && pretty-long-B) If short-A is false then pretty-long-B is not evaluated, which is a win because it also costs, I try to order conditions... If I move pretty-long-B before then the cost is always paid. Now I could write: if (short-A) { bool b = pretty-long-B; if (b) { ... But this looks contrived and people would raise other questions about such a strange construct for implementing && in 3 lines, 2 if and 1 variable... > As a side note I noticed that pgbench.c is not pgindent'ed. Since you > are modifying this file anyway probably you cold solve this issue too? > As a separate patch perhaps. As Robert said, not the purpose of this patch. Attached is a v3 which test integers more logically. I'm a lazy programmer who tends to minimize the number of key strokes. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: