Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-10-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 09/29/2017 08:43 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: reality. So I don't know if this needs backpatching or not. But it should be fixed for v10, as there it becomes a demonstrably live issue. Yes. Patch looks good to me, so committed to master and v10. Thanks! - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-29 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Robert, ISTM that this bug exists since rate was introduced, so shame on me and back-patching should be needed. I took a look at this and found that the proposed patch applies cleanly all the way back to 9.5, but the regression is reported to have begun with a commit that starts in

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Ok, the problem was a little bit more trivial than I thought. > > The issue is that under a low rate there may be no transaction in progress, > however the wait procedure was relying on select's timeout. If nothing is >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-29 Thread Fabien COELHO
reality. So I don't know if this needs backpatching or not. But it should be fixed for v10, as there it becomes a demonstrably live issue. Yes. -- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-29 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Jeff, > > Shouldn't we use pg_usleep to ensure portability? it is defined for >> front-end code. But it returns void, so the error check will have to be >> changed. >> > > Attached v3 with pg_usleep called

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-27 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 03:27:13AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >Shouldn't we use pg_usleep to ensure portability? it is defined for > >front-end code. But it returns void, so the error check will have to be > >changed. > > Attached v3 with pg_usleep called instead. > > >I didn't see the

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Jeff, Shouldn't we use pg_usleep to ensure portability? it is defined for front-end code. But it returns void, so the error check will have to be changed. Attached v3 with pg_usleep called instead. I didn't see the problem before the commit I originally indicated , so I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-11 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Jeff, > > Ok, the problem was a little bit more trivial than I thought. > > The issue is that under a low rate there may be no transaction in > progress, however the wait procedure was relying on select's

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Jeff, Ok, the problem was a little bit more trivial than I thought. The issue is that under a low rate there may be no transaction in progress, however the wait procedure was relying on select's timeout. If nothing is active there is nothing to wait for, thus it was an active loop in

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-04 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Jeff, > > I have fixed a bug introduced in the patch by changing && by || in the (min_sec > 0 && maxsock != -1) condition which was inducing errors with multi-threads & clients... >>> > Since this

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-04 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Jeff, I have fixed a bug introduced in the patch by changing && by || in the (min_sec > 0 && maxsock != -1) condition which was inducing errors with multi-threads & clients... Since this commit (12788ae49e1933f463bc5), if I use the --rate to throttle the transaction rate, it does get

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2017-09-04 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 09/24/2016 12:45 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> >> Attached are some small changes to your version: >> >> I have added the sleep_until fix. >> >> I have fixed a bug introduced in the patch by changing && by || in the

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-09-26 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 09/24/2016 12:45 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: Although I cannot be absolutely sure that the refactoring does not introduce any new bug, I'm convinced that it will be much easier to find them:-) :-) Attached are some small changes to your version: I have added the sleep_until fix. I have

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-09-24 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Heikki, Yeah, it really is quite a mess. I tried to review your patch, and I think it's correct, but I couldn't totally convince myself, because of the existing messiness of the logic. So I bit the bullet and started refactoring. I came up with the attached. It refactors the logic in

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-09-19 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Heikki, Yeah, it really is quite a mess. I tried to review your patch, and I think it's correct, but I couldn't totally convince myself, because of the existing messiness of the logic. Alas:-( So I bit the bullet and started refactoring. Wow! I came up with the attached. It

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-07-13 Thread Fabien COELHO
The attached patch provides a solution which ensures the return in the right condition and after the stat collection. The code structure requires another ugly boolean to proceed so as to preserve doing the reconnection between the decision that the return must be done and the place where it

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-07-13 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Tom, Ok. Here is an updated version, with a better suffix and a simplified comment. Doesn't this break the handling of latency calculations, or at least make the results completely different for the last metacommand than what they would be for a non-last command? It looks like it

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-07-12 Thread Tom Lane
Fabien COELHO writes: > Ok. Here is an updated version, with a better suffix and a simplified > comment. Doesn't this break the handling of latency calculations, or at least make the results completely different for the last metacommand than what they would be for a

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-07-10 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Michaël, You may want to name your patches with .patch or .diff. Using .sql is disturbing style :) Indeed! :-) Indeed, not reporting the progress back to the client in the case of a script with only meta commands is non-intuitive. This looks good to me. I'd just rewrite the comment

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-07-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > While testing meta-command pgbench only scripts, I noticed that there is an > infinite loop in threadRun, which means that other tasks such as reporting > progress do not get a chance. > > The attached patch breaks this

[HACKERS] pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts

2016-07-09 Thread Fabien COELHO
While testing meta-command pgbench only scripts, I noticed that there is an infinite loop in threadRun, which means that other tasks such as reporting progress do not get a chance. The attached patch breaks this loop by always returning at the end of a script. On "pgbench -T 3 -P 1 -f