On 2018-Nov-19, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Alvaro, > > > I also think that the pgbench_error() patch should go in before the main > > one. It seems a bit pointless to introduce code using a bad API only to > > fix the API together with all the new callers immediately afterwards. > > I'm not that keen on this part of the patch, because ISTM that introduces > significant and possibly costly malloc/free cycles when handling error, > which do not currently exist in pgbench.
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. > Related to Marina patch (triggered by reviewing the patches), I have > submitted a refactoring patch which aims at cleaning up the internal state > machine, so that additions and checking that all is well is simpler. > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/20/1754/ let me look at this one. > It has been reviewed, I think I answered to the reviewer concerns, but the > reviewer did not update the patch state on the cf app, so I do not know > whether he is unsatisfied or if it was just forgotten. Feel free to update a patch status to "needs review" yourself after submitting a new version that in your opinion respond to a reviewer's comments. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
