On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Actually, this whole things seems like a solution in search of a >> problem to me. We just reduced the verbosity of pgbench -i tenfold in >> the very recent past - I would have thought that enough to address >> this problem. But maybe not. > > The problem is that > > a) It blasts out too much output and everything scrolls off the screen, > and > > b) There is no indication of where the end is. > > These are independent problems, and I'd be happy to address them > separately if there are such specific concerns attached to this. > > Speaking of tenfold, we could reduce the output frequency tenfold to > once every 1000000, which would alleviate this problem for a while > longer.
Well, I wouldn't object to displaying a percentage on each output line. But I don't really like the idea of having them less frequent than they already are, because if you run into a situation that makes pgbench -i run slowly, as I occasionally do, it's marginal to tell the difference between "slow" and "completely hung" even with the current level of verbosity. However, we could add a -q flag to run more quietly, or something like that. Actually, I'd even be fine with making the default quieter, though we can't use -v for verbose since that's already taken. But I'd like to preserve the option of getting the current amount of output because sometimes I need that to troubleshoot problems. Actually it'd be nice to even get a bit more output: say, a timestamp on each line, and a completion percentage... but now I'm getting greedy. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
