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
Dave Page wrote:
Whilst doing some profiling of the server I found it useful to add an
option to pgbench to introduce a delay between client connection setup
and the start of the benchmark itself to allow me time to attach the
profiler to one of the backends.
Hmm, the backend already has a
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 19:27 +, Dave Page wrote:
Whilst doing some profiling of the server I found it useful to add an
option to pgbench to introduce a delay between client connection setup
and the start of the benchmark itself to allow me time to attach the
profiler to one of the backends.
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 19:27 +, Dave Page wrote:
Whilst doing some profiling of the server I found it useful to add an
option to pgbench to introduce a delay between client connection setup
and the start of the benchmark itself to allow me time to attach the
profiler to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:58:21 +
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 19:27 +, Dave Page wrote:
Whilst doing some profiling of the server I found it useful to add
an option to pgbench to introduce a
Dave Page wrote:
I'm aware of postgres -W, but wanted something that wouldn't get in the
way of other connections and would only affect my pgbench tests.
I think you could get the same effect by putting the -W in PGOPTIONS (in
pgbench's environment).
--
Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
I'm aware of postgres -W, but wanted something that wouldn't get in the
way of other connections and would only affect my pgbench tests.
I think you could get the same effect by putting the -W in PGOPTIONS (in
pgbench's environment).
That's a good
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
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
I concur with Alvaro that this case seems adequately covered by
PGOPTIONS=-W n pgbench ...
I started to disagree with this, but ultimately realized anyone who is
running pgbench for long enough to get useful results shouldn't have their
TPS
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 19:12 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
I just poked around the
documentation a bit and I didn't find anything that cleared up which
options you can pass from a client
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/libpq-envars.html
Which says only PGOPTIONS sets additional run-time
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I once wrote a similar patch to the one Dave submitted here and feel like
it's worth committing at least a documentation patch to show how to deal
with this. It's not obvious that pgbench pays attention to the
environment variables at all, and it's even
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Neil Conway wrote:
Perhaps one of the slightly unfortunate consequences of the postmaster
= postgres merge is that there is less of a clear distinction between
postmaster options and postgres options...
I'd already read all of the documentation that you and Tom suggested
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That clarifies the situation well enough for me. I think this is a two
part problem then. It's not necessarily obvious that pgbench will use
PGOPTIONS. In addition to that, the current documentation is less clear
than it could be on the subject of
13 matches
Mail list logo
