Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello, > > >>In doing this, I noticed that the latency output is wrong if you use -T > >>instead of -t; it always says the latency is zero because "duration" is > >>zero. I suppose it should be like in the attached instead. > > Indeed, I clearly overlooked option -t (transactions) which I never use.
Makes sense. > >Patch actually attached here. > > Tested. There is a small issue because the \n is missing. > > Here is another version which just replaces duration by time_include, > as they should be pretty close, and fixes the style so that it is the same > whether the detailed stats are collected or not, as you pointed out. Thanks, that makes sense. > >>At the same time, it says "latency average: XYZ" instead of "latency > >>average = XYZ" as in printSimpleStats, which doesn't look terribly > >>important. But the line appears in the SGML docs. > > Indeed. The documentation is manually edited when submitting changes so as > to minimize diffs, but then it does not correspond anymore to any actual > output, so it is easy to do it wrong. Well, you fixed the "latency stddev" line to the sample output too, but in my trial run that line was not displayed, only the latency average. What are the command line args that supposedly produced this output? Maybe we should add it as a SGML comment, or even display it to the doc's reader. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers