On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 20.06.2012 21:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On 20 June 2012 18:42, Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm sure Jeff submitted this because of the need for a standard test, >>>> rather than the wish to actually modify pgbench itself. >>>> >>>> Can I suggest that we include a list of standard scripts with pgbench >>>> for this purpose? These can then be copied alongside the binary when >>>> we do an install. >>> >>> I was thinking along similar lines myself. At the least, I think we >>> can't continue to add a short option for every new test type. >>> Instead, maybe we could have --test-type=WHATEVER, and perhaps that >>> then reads whatever.sql from some compiled-in directory. That would >>> allow us to sanely support a moderately large number of tests. > > We could call the --test-type option -f, and the "compiled-in directory" > could be the current directory ;-).
Well, that sounds a lot like "let's reject the patch". Which would be OK with me, I guess, but if the goal is to make it easy for all developers to run that particular test, I'm not sure that's getting us there. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
