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 :-) /D ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate