On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I would like to solicit opinions on whether this is a good idea. I >> understand that the patch author thinks it's a good idea, and I don't >> have a strong position either way. But I want to hear what other >> people think. > > If it makes pgbench more consistent with psql's command line options, > it seems reasonable to me.
OK, I think it does that. So that's three votes in favor and none opposed. I think I'd like to quibble with some of the names a bit, though. The patch adds --fill-factor, but I think we should spell it without the hyphen: --fillfactor. I think --quiet-log should be spelled --quiet. I think --connect for each connection is not very descriptive; maybe --connection-per-transaction or something, although that's kind of long. I think -M should be aliased to --protocol, not --query-mode. --skip-some-update is incorrectly pluralized; if that's what we're going to use, it should be --skip-some-updates. Alternatively, we could use --update-large-tables-only, which might make the intent more clear. On another note, it doesn't look like this updates the output of pgbench --help, which seems important. -- 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
