Hello again,
I received the following email from a helpful fellow off-list,
pointing out an error in my review:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Ragnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On fös, 2008-09-05 at 15:07 +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>> Wouldn't this be better written as:
>>
>> if ((duration > 0 && timer_exceeded) || st->cnt >=
>> nxacts)
>> {
>> <stop>
>> }
>
> sorry, but these do not lok as the same thing to me.
>
> in the first variant there will not be a stop if
> (duration > 0) and NOT (timer_exceeded) and (st->cnt >= nxacts)
> but in the second variant there will.
>
> admittedly, i have no idea if that situation can occur.
>
> gnari
>
gnari is right. Looking closer I see that nxacts defaults to 10 in
the absence of a -t option, so my version of the code would end up
stopping when the run reaches 10 transactions, even if the user has
specified a -T option.
Sorry for the error. The (duration > 0) test does in fact need to be separate.
Thanks for the catch, gnari.
Cheers,
BJ
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
