On 2018-03-02 10:47:01 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> For instance, I used extensively tps throttling, latencies and timeouts
> measures when developping and testing the checkpointer sorting & throttling
> patch.

That doesn't say that much about proposed feature additions, we didn't
say that feature isn't useful?

> I can stop doing both if the project decides that improving pgbench
> capabilities is against its interest.

That's not what we said. There's a difference between "we do not want to
improve pgbench" and "the cost/benefit balance seems to have shifted
over time, and the marginal benefit of proposed features isn't that

> As pgbench patches can stay ready-to-committers for half a dozen CF, I'm not
> sure the strain on the committer time is that heavy:-)

That's just plain wrong. Even patches that linger cost time and attention.

> > > As already said, the motivation is that it is a preparation for a (much)
> > > larger patch which would move pgbench expressions to fe utils and use them
> > > in "psql".
> > 
> > You could submit it together with that.
> Sure, I could. My previous experience is that maintaining a set of dependent
> patches is tiresome, and it does not help much with testing and reviewing
> either.

I'm exactly of the opposite opinion. Submitting things out of context,
without seeing at least drafts of later patches, is a lot more work and
doesn't allow to see the big picture.

> So I'm doing things one (slow) step at a time, especially as each
> time I've submitted patches which were doing more than one thing I was asked
> to disentangle features and restructuring.

There's a difference between maintaining a set of patches in a queue,
nicely split up, and submitting them entirely independently.


Andres Freund

Reply via email to