On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: > On 30 Srpen 2012, 18:02, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: >>> This patch is a bit less polished (and more complex) than the other >>> pgbench patch I've sent a while back, and I'm not sure how to handle the >>> Windows branch. That needs to be fixed during the commit fest. >> >> What's the problem with the Windows branch? > > Well, there are comments about how timestamp does not work on Windows > (filling 0), and I'm not sure how that affects the patch (e.g. determining > the aggregation interval). I have no Windows workstation available so I > can't actually try that.
Hmm. That seems like it might be something we need to fix first... >> Could you un-cuddle your brances to follow the PostgreSQL style, omit >> braces around single-statement blocks, and remove the spurious >> whitespace changes? > > OK, will do. > >> Instead of having both use_log_agg and naggseconds, I think you can >> get by with just having a single variable that is zero if aggregation >> is not in use and is otherwise the aggregation period. On a related >> note, you can't specify -A without an associated value, so there is no >> point in documenting a "default". As with your other patch, I suggest >> using a long option name like --latency-aggregate-interval and then >> making the name of the variable in the code match the option name, >> with s/-/_/g, for clarity. > > Why --latency-aggregate-interval? It has nothing to do with latencies, > it's merely number of transactions per interval. Oh, I thought it was modifying the behavior of -l. -- 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
