Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1911052208240.14337@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, >>> - for (step = initialize_steps; *step != '\0'; step++) >>> + for (const char *step = initialize_steps; *step != '\0'; step++) > > But I still wonder why we should apply such change here. Because it removes one declaration and reduces the scope of one variable? > If there is the reason why this change is necessary here, Nope, such changes are never necessary. > I'm OK with that. But if not, basically I'd like to avoid the change. > Otherwise it may make the back-patch a bit harder > when we change the surrounding code. I think that this is small enough so that it can be managed, if any back patch occurs on the surrounding code, which is anyway pretty unlikely. > Attached is the slightly updated version of the patch. Based on your > patch, I added the descriptions about logging of "g" and "G" steps into > the doc, and did some cosmetic changes. Barrying any objections, > I'm thinking to commit this patch. I'd suggest: "to print one message each ..." -> "to print one message every ..." "to print no progress ..." -> "not to print any progress ..." I would not call "fprintf(stderr" twice in a row if I can call it once. > While reviewing the patch, I found that current code allows space > character to be specified in -I. That is, checkInitSteps() accepts > space character. Why should we do this? > Probably I understand why runInitSteps() needs to accept space character > (because "v" in the specified string with -I is replaced with a space > character when --no-vacuum option is given). Yes, that is the reason, otherwise the string would have to be shifted. > But I'm not sure why that's also necessary in checkInitSteps(). Instead, > we should treat a space character as invalid in checkInitSteps()? I think that it may break --no-vacuum, and I thought that there may be other option which remove things, eventually. Also, having a NO-OP looks ok to me. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: