> On 27 Aug 2017, at 08:37, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > > About the patch: > > I'm generally in favor of providing more options to pgbench, especially if it > can give optimization ideas to the performance conscious user. > > I think that the name should be "tpcb-like-plfunc": the script does not > implement tpcb per spec, and such a function could be written in another > language with some performance benefit, or not. > > Maybe that mean to relax the prefix condition to "take the first matching > name" when prefix are used. > > If you are reimplementing the transaction anyway, you could consider using > UPDATE RETURNING instead of SELECT to get the balance. On the other hand the > doc says that the "steps" are put in a PL function, so maybe it should > reflect the original script. > > I'm surprised by: > > "select * from pgbench_transaction(:aid, :bid, :tid, :delta);\n" > > Why not simply: > > "select pgbench_transaction(:aid, :bid, :tid, :delta);\n" > > I would suggest to use a more precise function name, in case other functions > are thought of. Maybe "pgbench_tpcb_like_plfunc". > > I would suggest to indent better the PL/function and put keywords and types > in capital, and add explicitely the properties of the function (eg STRICT, > VOLATILE?). > > There is a spurious space at the end of the executeStatement call line. > > The patch potentially interacts with other patches in the long and slow > queue... > > As usual with pgbench there are no regression tests.
This patch has been Waiting for author during the commitfest without updates, moving to Returned with feedback. cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
