On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 22:17, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 02:16, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Ian,
> >
> > > cfbot reports the patch no longer applies. As CommitFest 2022-11 is
> > > currently underway, this would be an excellent time to update the patch.
> >
> >
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 02:16, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> > cfbot reports the patch no longer applies. As CommitFest 2022-11 is
> > currently underway, this would be an excellent time to update the patch.
>
> Attached a v5 which is just a rebase.
The patch does not apply on top of
Hello Jelte,
This patch seems to have quite some use case overlap with my patch which
adds load balancing to libpq itself:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/pr3pr83mb04768e2ff04818eeb2179949f7...@pr3pr83mb0476.eurprd83.prod.outlook.com
Thanks for the pointer.
The end purpose of
This patch seems to have quite some use case overlap with my patch which
adds load balancing to libpq itself:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/pr3pr83mb04768e2ff04818eeb2179949f7...@pr3pr83mb0476.eurprd83.prod.outlook.com
My patch is only able to add "random" load balancing though, not
Hello Ian,
cfbot reports the patch no longer applies. As CommitFest 2022-11 is
currently underway, this would be an excellent time to update the patch.
Attached a v5 which is just a rebase.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index
2022年4月2日(土) 22:35 Fabien COELHO :
>
>
> > According to the cfbot this patch needs a rebase
>
> Indeed. v4 attached.
Hi
cfbot reports the patch no longer applies. As CommitFest 2022-11 is
currently underway, this would be an excellent time to update the patch.
Thanks
Ian Barwick
According to the cfbot this patch needs a rebase
Indeed. v4 attached.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index ebdb4b3f46..d96d2d291d 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ PostgreSQL
According to the cfbot this patch needs a rebase
Pgbench is a simple benchmark tool by design, and I wonder if adding
a multiconnect feature will cause pgbench to be used incorrectly.
Maybe, but I do not see how it would be worse that what pgbench already
allows.
I agree that pgbench is simple; perhaps really too simple when it comes to
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 11:43 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hi Sami,
>
> > Pgbench is a simple benchmark tool by design, and I wonder if adding
> > a multiconnect feature will cause pgbench to be used incorrectly.
>
> Maybe, but I do not see how it would be worse that what pgbench already
>
Hi Sami,
Pgbench is a simple benchmark tool by design, and I wonder if adding
a multiconnect feature will cause pgbench to be used incorrectly.
Maybe, but I do not see how it would be worse that what pgbench already
allows.
A real world use-case will be helpful for this thread.
The current version of the patch does not apply, so I could not test it.
Here are some comments I have.
Pgbench is a simple benchmark tool by design, and I wonder if adding
a multiconnect feature will cause pgbench to be used incorrectly.
A real world use-case will be helpful for this thread.
Hello Greg,
It looks like David sent a patch and Fabien sent a followup patch. But
there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion or further patches.
It sounds like there are some basic questions about what the right
interface should be. Are there specific questions that would be
helpful for
Hi guys,
It looks like David sent a patch and Fabien sent a followup patch. But
there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion or further patches.
It sounds like there are some basic questions about what the right
interface should be. Are there specific questions that would be
helpful for moving
Hello David,
round-robin and random make sense. I am wondering how round-robin
would work with -C, though? Would you just reuse the same connection
string as the one chosen at the starting point.
Well, not necessarily, but this is debatable.
My expectation for such a behavior would be
> >> Good. I was thinking of adding such capability, possibly for handling
> >> connection errors and reconnecting…
> >
> > round-robin and random make sense. I am wondering how round-robin
> > would work with -C, though? Would you just reuse the same connection
> > string as the one chosen at
Bonjour Michaël,
Good. I was thinking of adding such capability, possibly for handling
connection errors and reconnecting…
round-robin and random make sense. I am wondering how round-robin
would work with -C, though? Would you just reuse the same connection
string as the one chosen at the
On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 12:22:45PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Good. I was thinking of adding such capability, possibly for handling
> connection errors and reconnecting…
round-robin and random make sense. I am wondering how round-robin
would work with -C, though? Would you just reuse the
Hello David,
This patch adds the concept of "multiconnect" to pgbench (better
terminology welcome).
Good. I was thinking of adding such capability, possibly for handling
connection errors and reconnecting…
The basic idea here is to allow connections made with pgbench to use
different
-hackers,
This patch adds the concept of "multiconnect" to pgbench (better
terminology welcome). The basic idea here is to allow connections made
with pgbench to use different auth values or connect to multiple
databases. We implement this using a user-provided PGSERVICEFILE and
choosing a
20 matches
Mail list logo
