Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I think you could get the same effect by putting the -W in PGOPTIONS (in
>>> pgbench's environment).
>> That's a good point. It does have the downside that it will affect the
>> pgbench results - though that wouldn't actually be an issue for what I
>> was doing.
> Well, if you're attaching a profiler or debugger to a backend, you're
> hardly gonna get unadulterated TPS readings from pgbench anyway. 

No, but it can be a simple consistency check between multiple profiler
runs - but then it doesn't matter if it's affected by delay of course as
long as it's of a consistent length.

One small advantage of doing this client-side (which I'm pretty sure
noone can shoot down :-) ) is that the initial connection used to vacuum
etc. isn't delayed which could be annoying.

> I concur with Alvaro that this case seems adequately covered by
>       PGOPTIONS="-W n" pgbench ...
> which is what I've always used in similar situations...

Fair 'enuff :-)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to