(2014/02/28 2:39), Tom Lane wrote:
> Fabien COELHO writes:
>>> Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument. It's that
>>> little frammish that makes this problem significant.
>
>> I do not see a strong case to make options with arguments case insensitive
>> as a general rule. If this i
Fabien COELHO writes:
>> Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument. It's that
>> little frammish that makes this problem significant.
> I do not see a strong case to make options with arguments case insensitive
> as a general rule. If this is done for -p/-P, why not -t/-T?
I have n
ISTM that this is an unfortunate but unlikely mistake, as "-p" is
used in all postgresql commands to signify the port number (psql,
pg_dump, pg_basebackup, createdb, ...).
Plus other tools already use -P for progress, such as rsync.
Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument. It
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
>>> I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
>>> because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
>>> the recently added --progres
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
> >I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
> >because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
> >the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way
Hello Tom,
Meh. A progress-reporting feature has use when the tool is working
towards completion of a clearly defined task. In the case of pgbench,
if you told it to run for -T 60 seconds rather than -T 10 seconds,
that's probably because you don't trust a 10-second average to be
sufficiently
Hello Tom.
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know that
that
On 02/25/2014 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Meh. A progress-reporting feature has use when the tool is working
towards completion of a clearly defined task. In the case of pgbench,
if you told it to run for -T 60 seconds rather than -T 10 seconds,
that's probably because you don't trust a 10-second
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
>> long --progress form. I won't argue that this feature is completely
>> useless, but for sure it's not something I'd want more often than once
>> in
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
> I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
> because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
> the recently added --progress opt
2014-02-25 20:49 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
> I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
> I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
> because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
> the recently added --progress option. pgben
11 matches
Mail list logo
