Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys afterinitialization
| От | Fabien COELHO |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys afterinitialization |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.20.1711131925230.18461@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom, > Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes: >> [ pgbench_custom_initialization_v16.patch ] > > I'm starting to review this patch, and I wonder how it is that you > ended up with "c" as the command letter for dropping existing tables. > Seems like "d" for DROP would be much less confusing. I see that at > one point "d" meant the data load step, but since you've gone with > "g" for "generate data" that conflict is gone. Indeed, you are right. As a reviewer, I can recall that there were some hesitations, not sure we ended up with the best possible choice. Note that if "c" is freed by "d" (drop), then it may be worth considering that "t" (table) could be replaced by "c" (create). I'm fine with anything consistent and easy to memorize, really. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: