On 2014-12-15 10:55:30 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> writes: > > > Currently pgbench -f (run custom script) executes vacuum against > > > pgbench_* tables before stating bench marking if -n (or --no-vacuum) > > > is not specified. If those tables do not exist, pgbench fails. To > > > prevent this, -n must be specified. For me this behavior seems insane > > > because "-f" does not necessarily suppose the existence of the > > > pgbench_* tables. Attached patch prevents pgbench from exiting even > > > if those tables do not exist. > > > > I don't particularly care for this approach. I think if we want to > > do something about this, we should just make -f imply -n. Although > > really, given the lack of complaints so far, it seems like people > > manage to deal with this state of affairs just fine. Do we really > > need to do anything? > > > > I hereby complain about this. > > It has bugged me several times, and having the errors be non-fatal when -f > was given was the best (easy) thing I could come up with as well, but I was > too lazy to actually write the code.
Same here. I vote for making -f imply -n as well. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
