On 3/11/19 1:04 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>
>> I think we've spent enough time on this. Committed with minor changes.
> Thanks for committing it. However, I can't see it in git. Did you forget
> to push?
>
>
Ooops, yes, done now.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I think we've spent enough time on this. Committed with minor changes.
Thanks for committing it. However, I can't see it in git. Did you forget
to push?
> cheers
>
>
> andrew
- ilmari
--
"A disappointingly low fraction of the human race is,
at any given time, on
On 3/11/19 6:07 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
> wrote:
>> David Rowley writes:
>>> I think some comments in the area to explain the 0th is for the sql
>>> would be a good idea too, that might stop any confusion in the
>>> future. I see that's
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > I think some comments in the area to explain the 0th is for the sql
> > would be a good idea too, that might stop any confusion in the
> > future. I see that's documented in the struct header comment, but
David Rowley writes:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 01:57, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I've put it as 256 args now.
>
> I had a look at this and I see you've added some docs to mention the
> number of parameters that are allowed; good.
>
> + pgbench supports up to 256 variables in one
> + statement.
>
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 01:57, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've put it as 256 args now.
I had a look at this and I see you've added some docs to mention the
number of parameters that are allowed; good.
+ pgbench supports up to 256 variables in one
+ statement.
However, the code does not allow 256
On 2019-02-26 12:51:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 17:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Why not just allocate it dynamically? Seems weird to have all these
> >> MAX_ARGS, MAX_SCRIPTS ... commands.
>
> > For me, its a few minutes work to correct a problem
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 17:38, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why not just allocate it dynamically? Seems weird to have all these
>> MAX_ARGS, MAX_SCRIPTS ... commands.
> For me, its a few minutes work to correct a problem and report to the
> community.
> Dynamic allocation,
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 17:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-02-26 12:57:14 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:19, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > I've put it as 256 args now.
> >
> > The overhead of that is about 2kB, so not really an issue.
>
> Why not just allocate it
Hi,
On 2019-02-26 12:57:14 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:19, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I've put it as 256 args now.
>
> The overhead of that is about 2kB, so not really an issue.
Why not just allocate it dynamically? Seems weird to have all these
MAX_ARGS, MAX_SCRIPTS ...
Simon Riggs writes:
> diff --git a/src/bin/pgbench/t/001_pgbench_with_server.pl
> b/src/bin/pgbench/t/001_pgbench_with_server.pl
> index ad15ba66ea..2e4957c09a 100644
> --- a/src/bin/pgbench/t/001_pgbench_with_server.pl
> +++ b/src/bin/pgbench/t/001_pgbench_with_server.pl
> @@ -587,10 +587,19
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:19, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Simon,
>
Thanks for reviewing Fabien,
> > pgbench has a strange restriction to only allow 10 arguments, which is
> too
> > low for some real world uses.
> >
> > Since MAX_ARGS is only used for an array of pointers and an array of
>
Hello Simon,
pgbench has a strange restriction to only allow 10 arguments, which is too
low for some real world uses.
Since MAX_ARGS is only used for an array of pointers and an array of
integers increasing this should not be a problem, so increase value to 255.
Fine with me on principle.
13 matches
Mail list logo
