Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>>> Is a connection per transaction really a sane case to consider?

>> Yes, I would think. This case reveals the connection overhead. We
>> already are able to handle the simple query cases. Why not for
>> extended query cases?

> Probably it can be made to work, but it is much less useful to prepare a 
> statement which is known to be needed just once, so I think it would be 
> fine to simply forbid "-M prepared" and "-C" together.

It's certainly a bug that the combination of the switches doesn't work,
and I already fixed it (47211af17a).  My question was more towards
whether -C is a useful benchmarking option at all.  I cannot imagine
a situation in which, if someone said "I'm doing only one transaction per
session, and I have a performance problem", I would not answer "yes,
and you just explained why".

What I found out when I looked into it was that pgbench had simply failed
to consider *at all* whether it needed to reset any state when dropping a
connection and replacing it with a new one.  That's a really fundamental
problem, even if the only symptom we've found so far is "-M prepared" not
working.  And it's been there since -C was invented, AFAICT.  The fact
that the bug went undetected this long says a lot about the amount of
real-world use the switch gets.  So I think it's fair to consider whether
we should not eliminate a whole class of future bugs by removing a switch
that gets no use.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to