Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Bonjour Michaël, Hello Robert,

>> Let's mark this Returned with Feedback and move on.  We've only got a
>> week left in the CommitFest anyhow and there are lots of other things
>> that still need work (and which actually have been revised to match
>> previous feedback).
>
> Done as such, let's move on.

Hmmm.

I think that there is a misunderstanding, most of which being my fault.

I have really tried to do everything that was required from committers, 
including revising the patch to match all previous feedback.

Version 6 sent on Oct 4 did include all fixes required at the time (no if, 
no unusual and operators, TAP tests)... However I forgot to remove some 
documentation about the removed stuff, which made Robert think that I had 
not done it. I apologise for this mistake and the subsequent 
misunderstanding:-(

The current v8 sent on Jan 25 should only implement existing server-side 
stuff, including with the same precedence as pointed out by Tom.

So for the implementation side I really think that I have done exactly all 
that was required of me by committers, although sometimes with bugs or 
errors, my apology, again...


As for the motivation, which is another argument, I cannot do more than 
point to actual published official benchmark specifications that do 
require these functions. I'm not inventing anything or providing some 
useless catalog of math functions.

If pgbench is about being seated on a bench and running postgres on your 
laptop to get some heat, my mistake... I thought it was about 
benchmarking, which does imply a few extra capabities.

If the overall feedback is to be undestood as "the postgres community does 
not think that pgbench should be able to be used to implement benchmarks 
such as TPC-B", then obviously I will stop efforts to improve it for that 
purpose.


To conclude:

IMHO the relevant current status of the patch should be "Needs review" and 
possibly "Move to next CF".

If the feedback is "we do not want pgbench to implement benchmarks such as 
TPC-B", then indeed the proposed features are not needed and the status 
should be "Rejected".

In any case, "Returned with feedback" does not really apply.

A+

-- 
Fabien.