On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I think that even in normal (non-initialization) usage, this message >>>> should be suppressed when the provided scale factor >>>> is equal to the pgbench_branches table count. >>> >>> The attached patch does just that. There is probably no reason to >>> warn people that we are doing what they told us to, but not for the >>> reason they think. >> >> In my opinion, a more sensible approach than anything we're doing >> right now would be to outright *reject* options that will only be >> ignored. If -s isn't supported except with -i, then trying to specify >> -s without -i should just error out at the options-parsing stage, >> before we even try to connect to the database. It's not very helpful >> to accept options and then ignore them, and we have many instances of >> that right now: initialization-only switches are accepted and ignored >> when not initializing, and run-only switches are accepted and ignored >> with initializing. > > I like the ability to say, effectively, "I think I had previously did > the initialization with -s 40, if I actually didn't then scream at me, > and if I did then go ahead and do the pgbench I just asked for". > But, since it does unconditionally report the scale actually used and > I just have to have the discipline to go look at the result, I can see > where this is perhaps overkill. In my own (non-PG-related) code, > when I have tasks that have to be run in multiple phases that can get > out of sync if I am not careful, I like to be able to specify the > flags even in the "unused" invocation, so that the code can verify I > am being consistent. Code is better at that than I am.
I guess my point is - if we're gonna have it do that, then shouldn't we actually *error out* if the scales don't match, not just print a warning and then charge ahead? > I'm not sure I know what all would be incompatible with what. I could > start drawing that matrix up once the API stabilizes, but I think you > are still planning on whacking this -I option around a bit. It's mostly that everything in the "initialization options" section of pgbench --help is incompatible with everything in the "benchmarking options" section, and the other way around. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
