On 2019-Sep-27, Amit Kapila wrote: > Thanks, Alvaro, both seem like good suggestions to me. However, there > are a few more things where your feedback can help: > a. With new options, we will partition pgbench_accounts and the > reason is that because that is the largest table. Do we need to be > explicit about the reason in docs?
Hmm, I would document what is it that we do, and stop there without explaining why. Unless you have concrete reasons to want the reason documented? > b. I am not comfortable with test modification in > 001_pgbench_with_server.pl. Basically, it doesn't seem like we should > modify the existing test to use non-default tablespaces as part of > this patch. It might be a good idea in general, but I am not sure > doing as part of this patch is a good idea as there is no big value > addition with that modification as far as this patch is concerned. > OTOH, as such there is no harm in testing with non-default > tablespaces. Yeah, this change certainly is out of place in this patch. > The other thing is that the query used in patch to fetch partition > information seems correct to me, but maybe there is a better way to > get that information. I hadn't looked at that, but yeah it seems that it should be using pg_partition_tree(). -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
