Hi Ashutosh, > If there is one method that is better than all others, community will > be more willing to accept implementation of that one method than > multiple implementations so as to reduce maintenance burden.
Ok then. I'll leave "COPY FROM STDIN BINARY" implementation out of 3 only. Would you prefer to replace original COPY FROM STDIN TEXT by this code or add it as new "init-step" (e.g., with code "c")? I also have noted that current code doesn't prevent pgbench parameter like "--init-steps=dtgG". It allows to run data generation step twice. Each of these "g" and "G" will present own timing in status line. Is this an oversight or intentional? > The code in the patch does not have enough comments. It's hard to > understand the methods just from the code. Each of the generateData* > functions could use a prologue explaining the data generation method > it uses. To add comments is not a problem at all. So far, it was just "code for myself" and I was checking if there is any interest in community to include it. >> I'm sure that much more testing is required to run this code under different >> conditions and hardware to get a better picture. So far it looks very >> promising. > Sure. Cheers, Boris
