Fabien,
>> Included is a proposed fix for this (also fixing weired "remaining"
>> part). If there's no objection, I will commit it.
>
> Looks ok, but I would consider switching to "double" instead of
> "int64".
Assuming you are talking about "remaining sec" part, I agree. Here is
the revised patch.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
diff --git a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c b/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
index 2c96fae..00374d8 100644
--- a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
+++ b/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
@@ -1720,11 +1720,11 @@ init(bool is_no_vacuum)
INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(diff, start);
elapsed_sec = INSTR_TIME_GET_DOUBLE(diff);
- remaining_sec = (scale * naccounts - j) * elapsed_sec /
j;
+ remaining_sec = ((double)scale * naccounts - j) *
elapsed_sec / j;
fprintf(stderr, INT64_FORMAT " of " INT64_FORMAT "
tuples (%d%%) done (elapsed %.2f s, remaining %.2f s).\n",
j, (int64) naccounts * scale,
- (int) (((int64) j * 100) / (naccounts *
scale)),
+ (int) (((int64) j * 100) / (naccounts *
(int64)scale)),
elapsed_sec, remaining_sec);
}
/* let's not call the timing for each row, but only each 100
rows */
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
