On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Of course. It's also a heck of a lot more flexible. Adding on another
>> ad-hoc option that does the minimum possible amount of work needed to
>> address one specific problem is always going to be less work; but after
>> we repeat that process five or ten times, we're going to have a mess.
>
> Well, I still like Masahiko-san's proposal, but I'm not prepared to
> keep arguing about it right now. Maybe some other people will weigh
> in with an opinion.
>
My motivation of this proposal is same as what Robert has. I
understand that ad-hoc option can solve only the part of big problem
and it could be cause of mess. However It seems me that the script
especially for table initialization will not be flexible than we
expected. I mean, even if we provide some meta commands for table
initialization or data loading, these meta commands work for only
pgbench tables (i.g., pgbench_accounts, pgbench_branches and so on).
If we want to create other tables and load data to them as we want we
can do that using psql -f. So an alternative ways is having a flexible
style option for example --custom-initialize = { [load, create_pkey,
create_fkey, vacuum], ... }. That would solve this in a better way.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
