On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> Yes, I think that's a good idea. I don't know whether : is the right >> separator; I kind of line @. But that's bikeshedding. > > Possible ASCII contenders should avoid shell and filename interaction, which > exclude * ? ! & / < > [ ] . - $ and so on: those that seem to remain are @ , > = : % # +. I like "%" because this is about sharing, although this is not a > percentage.
I liked @ because it makes sense to read it as the word "at". >> I'd actually like to introduce a new pgbench option that selects a builtin >> script by name, so that we can have more than three of them without running >> out of option names (or going insane). So suppose we introduce pgbench -b >> BUILTIN_NAME, where BUILTIN_NAME is initially one of these: >> classic, classic-simple-update, classic-select-only >> >> Then you can do pgbench -b classic@1 -b classic-select-only@9 or >> similar to get 10% write, 90% read. > > I like this idea, as -b/-f would be symmetric. Prepending classic to the > names does not look necessary. I would suggest "tpcb-like", "simple-update" > & "select-only", or even maybe any prefix. If the bench scripts could be > read from some pg directory instead of being actually inlined, even more > code could be dropped from pgbench. I think including classic would be a very good idea. We might want to add a TPC-C like workload in the future, or any number of other things. Naming things in a good way from the outset can only make that easier. -- 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
