Hi, Febien
Thanks for your fast response and fix! I set your patch ready for commiter now.
(2013/07/01 19:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
I have small comments. I think that 'lat' is not generally abbreviation of
'latency'. But I don't know good abbreviation. If you have any good
abbreviation, please send us revise version.
I needed something short, because I may add a "lag" time as well under
throttling. No better idea.
OK. We have no idea:-)
And, please fix under following code. It might be degrade by past your patches.
Done. I've also put the long option definition at its right place in the
alphabetical order.
Oh, I leak it in my review. Thanks.
I also test your throttle patch. My impression of this patch is good, but it
does not necessary to execute with progress option. [...]
I agree that it is not necessary. However for my use case it would be useful to
have both throttling & progress at the same time, in particular to check the
effect of other concurrent operations (eg. pg_dump, pg_basebackup) while a bench
is running.
It is very dicreet checking! I think it is important for momentous systems, too.
If I have time for reviewing throttle patch for more detail, I will send you
comment. I hope both patches are commited.
Best regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
