On 6/17/21 8:49 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 7:24 PM Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>> Seems like it should be straightforward to fix, though, with fixes >>> already proposed (though I haven't studied them yet, will do). >> I think that fixing logging is simple enough, thus a revert is not >> necessary. > I prepared a draft revert patch for discussion, just in case it comes > in handy. This reverts "pgbench: Improve time logic.", but "pgbench: > Synchronize client threads." remains (slightly rearranged). > > I'm on the fence TBH, I can see that it's really small things and it > seems we have the patches, but it's late, late enough that > benchmarking gurus are showing up to benchmark with it for real, and > it's not great to be getting in the way of that with what is mostly > refactoring work, so I don't think it would be a bad thing if we > agreed to try again in 15.
Is there an identified issue beyond the concrete example Greg gave of the timestamps? We are still fixing a few things with potentially far more impact than anything in pgbench, so fixing this wouldn't bother me that much, as long as we get it done for Beta2. > (A number of arguments for and against > moving pgbench out of the postgresql source tree and release cycle > occur to me, but I guess that's a topic for another thread.) > Indeed. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
