OK, I've committed the fix for the -T part. It didn't back-patch
cleanly, and it is a minor bug, so I'm not inclined to worry about it
further.
I agree that it is a very minor bug and not necessary worth back-patching.
I didn't commit the fix for the -P part, because Alvaro objected to
the
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Fabien COELHO
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> - when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
>>>time (i.e. do not wait for a transaction beyond the end of the run).
>>
>>
>> Every other place wh
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
- when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
time (i.e. do not wait for a transaction beyond the end of the run).
Every other place where doCustom() returns false is implemented as
return clientDone(...). I t
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> - when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
>time (i.e. do not wait for a transaction beyond the end of the run).
Every other place where doCustom() returns false is implemented as
return clientDone(...). I th
You're probably right, but TBH I'm pretty unsure about this whole thing.
If the question is "is there a bug", then answer is yes. The progress report
may disappear if thread 0 happens to stop, even of all other threads go on.
Obviously it only concerns slow queries, but there is no reason why
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> >>Probably it is possible, but it will sure need more that one little
> >>condition to be achieved... I do not think that introducing a non trivial
> >>distributed election algorithm involving locks and so would be a good
> >>decision for this very little matter.
> >>
> >>
Probably it is possible, but it will sure need more that one little
condition to be achieved... I do not think that introducing a non trivial
distributed election algorithm involving locks and so would be a good
decision for this very little matter.
My advice is "keep it simple".
If this is a
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Probably it is possible, but it will sure need more that one little
> condition to be achieved... I do not think that introducing a non trivial
> distributed election algorithm involving locks and so would be a good
> decision for this very little matter.
>
> My advice is "
Hello Alvaro,
Attached is a v3 which test integers more logically. I'm a lazy
programmer who tends to minimize the number of key strokes.
Well. From what I can tell this patch is Ready for Committer.
I'm not a fan of this approach either. Would it be too complicated if
we had a global vari
Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> > Attached is a v3 which test integers more logically. I'm a lazy
> > programmer who tends to minimize the number of key strokes.
>
> Well. From what I can tell this patch is Ready for Committer.
I'm not a fan of this approach either. Would it be too complicated if
> Attached is a v3 which test integers more logically. I'm a lazy
> programmer who tends to minimize the number of key strokes.
Well. From what I can tell this patch is Ready for Committer.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscripti
Hello Aleksander,
Thanks for the look at the patch.
time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2
On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5.
I'm pretty sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though.
Sure.
[...] you should probably write:
if(someint > 0)
Ok.
if(somebool ==
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>> time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2
>
> On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5. I'm pretty
> sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though.
>
> I tested this patch on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS with GCC 4.8. It applies
> c
> time pgbench -T 5 -R 0.1 -P 1 -c 2 -j 2
On my laptop this command executes 25 seconds instead of 5. I'm pretty
sure it IS a bug. Probably a minor one though.
I tested this patch on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS with GCC 4.8. It applies
cleanly on master branch (c7111d11) and solves a described problem.
No c
Hello Robert,
> While testing for something else I encountered two small bugs under very low
> rate (--rate=0.1). The attached patches fixes these.
>
> - when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
>time (i.e. do not wait for a transaction beyond the end of the
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> While testing for something else I encountered two small bugs under very low
> rate (--rate=0.1). The attached patches fixes these.
>
> - when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
>time (i.e. do not wait for a
While testing for something else I encountered two small bugs under very
low rate (--rate=0.1). The attached patches fixes these.
- when a duration (-T) is specified, ensure that pgbench ends at that
time (i.e. do not wait for a transaction beyond the end of the run).
- when there is a p
17 matches
Mail list logo
