On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:46:42 +0900 (JST) Tatsuo Ishii <is...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> >> > My 0.02€: From a benchmarking perspective, ISTM that it makes sense to > >> > include disconnection times, which are clearly linked to connections, > >> > especially with -C. So I'd rather have the more meaningful figure even > >> > at the price of a small change in an undocumented feature. > >> > >> +1. The aim of -C is trying to measure connection overhead which > >> naturally includes disconnection overhead. > > > > I think it is better to measure disconnection delays when -C is specified in > > pg 14. This seems not necessary when -C is not specified because pgbench > > just > > reports "initial connection time". > > Ok. > > > However, what about pg13 or later? Do you think we should also change the > > behavior of pg13 or later? If so, should we measure disconnection delay even > > when -C is not specified in pg13? > > You mean "pg13 or before"? Sorry, you are right. I mean "pg13 or before". > -- > Tatsuo Ishii > SRA OSS, Inc. Japan > English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php > Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
