Re: Error on pgbench logs
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Error on pgbench logs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2106160845470.2188713@pseudo обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Error on pgbench logs (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Error on pgbench logs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michaël-san, Yugo-san, >> I am fine with this version, but I think it would be better if we have >> a comment explaining what "tx" is for. Yes. Done. >> Also, how about adding Assert(tx) instead of using "else if (tx)" because >> we are assuming that tx is always true when agg_interval is not used, right? Ok. Done. > Agreed on both points. From what I get, this code could be clarified > much more, I agree that the code is a little bit awkward. > and perhaps partially refactored to have less spaghetti > code between the point where we call it at the end of a thread or when > gathering stats of a transaction mid-run, but that's not something to > do post-beta1. Yep. > I am not completely sure that the result would be worth it either. I'm not either. > Let's document things and let's the readers know better the > assumptions this area of the code relies on, for clarity. Sure. > The dependency between agg_interval and sample_rate is one of those > things, somebody needs now to look at the option parsing why only one is > possible at the time. Actually it would work if both are mixed: the code would aggregate a sample. However it does not look very useful to do that, so it is arbitrary forbidden. Not sure whether this is that useful to prevent this use case. > Using an extra tx flag to track what to do after the loop for the > aggregate print to the log file is an improvement in this direction. Yep. Attached v4 improves comments and moves tx as an assert. -- Fabien.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: