Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd)
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1903271429360.14554@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pendingsolution of its timing is (fwd) (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Heikki, Indeed, yet again, I forgot the attachement:-( >> I stared at the new test case for a while, and I must say it looks very >> cryptic. It's not exactly this patch's fault - all the pgbench tests are >> cryptic - > > Perl is cryptic. Regexprs are cryptic. > >> but I think we need to do something about that before adding any more >> tests. I'm not sure what exactly, but I'd like them to be more like >> pg_regress tests, where you have an expected output and you compare it with >> the actual output. I realize that's not easy, because there are a lot of >> varying numbers in the output, but we've got to do something. >> >> As a good first step, I wish the pgbench() function used named arguments. >> [...] >> >> You would have something like this: >> >> my $elapsed = pgbench( >> test_name => 'pgbench progress', >> opts => '-T 2 -P 1 -l --aggregate-interval=1' > > I do not like them much in perl because it changes the code significantly, > but why not. That would be another patch anyway. > > A lighter but efficient option would be to add a few comments on the larger > calls, see attached. Please really find the attachement, and do not hesitate to share spare a few grey cells so that I will not forget about them in the futur:-) -- Fabien.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: