On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > I wrote: >> - fprintf(stderr, "gaussian parameter must be at least >> %f (not \"%s\")\n", MIN_GAUSSIAN_PARAM, argv); >> + fprintf(stderr, >> + "random gaussian parameter must be greater >> than %f " >> + "(got %f)\n", MIN_GAUSSIAN_PARAM, parameter); >> This looks like useless noise to me. Why changing those messages? > > > Because the message was not saying that it was about random, and I think > that it is the important. >> fprintf(stderr, >> - "exponential parameter must be greater than >> zero (not \"%s\")\n", >> - argv); >> + "random exponential parameter must be greater than >> 0.0 " >> + "(got %f)\n", parameter); >> st->ecnt++; >> - return true; >> + return false; >> This diff is noise as well, and should be removed. > > Ok, I can but "zero" and "not" back, but same remark as above, why not tell > that it is about random? This information is missing.
Those things should be a separate patch then, committed separately as they provide more verbose messages. >> + /* >> + * Note: this section could be removed, as the same >> functionnality >> + * is available through \set xxx random_gaussian(...) >> + */ >> I think that you are right to do that. That's no fun to break existing >> scripts, even if people doing that with pgbench are surely experienced >> hackers. > > Ok, but I would like a clear go or vote before doing this. For now, I am seeing opinions on those matters from nobody else than me and you, and we got toward the same direction. If you think that there is a possibility that somebody has a different opinion on those matters, and it is likely so let's keep the patch as-is then and wait for more input: it is easier to remove code than add it back. I am not sure what a committer would say, and it surely would be a waste of time to just move back and worth for everybody. >> int() should be strengthened regarding bounds. For example: >> \set cid debug(int(int(9223372036854775807) + >> double(9223372036854775807))) >> debug(script=0,command=1): int -9223372036854775808 > > > Hmmm. You mean just to check the double -> int conversion for overflow, > as in: > > SELECT (9223372036854775807::INT8 + > 9223372036854775807::DOUBLE PRECISION)::INT8; > > Ok. Yes, that's what I mean. The job running into that should definitely fail with a proper out-of-bound error message. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers