Fabien COELHO wrote: > > >>[...] and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the > >>script-specifiying argument already read. That strikes me as a very > >>unintuitive interface. > > > >Ok, I understand this "afterward modification" objection. > > > >What if the -w would be required *before*, and supply a weight for (the > >first/maybe all) script(s) specified *afterwards*, so it does not modify > >something already provided? I think it would be more intuitive, or at > >least less surprising. > > Here is a v3 which does that. If there is a better idea, do not hesitate!
This seems a moderately reasonable interface to me. There are other programs that behave in that way, and once you get used to the idea, it makes sense. I think for complete consistency we would have to require that -w is specified for all scripts or none of them. I am not sure if this means that it's okay to have later scripts use a weight specified for a previous one (i.e. it's only an error to fail to specify a weight for options before the first -w), or each -f must have always its own -w explicitely. In other words, pg_bench -w2 -f script1.sql -f script2.sql either script2 has weight 2, or it's an error, depending on what we decide; but pg_bench -f script1.sql -w 2 -fscript2.sql is always an error. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers