On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:48:04AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Also, I'm not sure of any system used with pgbench that do not have > threads, so ISTM that the thread fork-emulation hack is more or less > useless, and it is pretty masochistic to maintain when adding > features.
Fair point. When added, the code pertaining to fork-emulation was well-isolated, and that remained the case as recently as 9.3. Your recent --progress patch was the first to suffer contortions for the benefit of that mode. (The per-statement latencies feature just declined to support it.) > >For the time being, I propose the attached comment patch. > > It comment seems very clear to me. I do not understand why it starts > with XXX, though. PostgreSQL code uses that notation regularly. When I add it, I typically have in mind "the following is not fully satisfying, but it's not bad enough to make a point of improving". I've committed the comment patch. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
