Hello Tom.
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than -p 65432 I'd typed -P 65432, thereby invoking
the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know that
that
Hello Tom,
Meh. A progress-reporting feature has use when the tool is working
towards completion of a clearly defined task. In the case of pgbench,
if you told it to run for -T 60 seconds rather than -T 10 seconds,
that's probably because you don't trust a 10-second average to be
Fabien COELHO wrote:
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than -p 65432 I'd typed -P 65432, thereby invoking
the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Fabien COELHO wrote:
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than -p 65432 I'd typed -P 65432, thereby invoking
the recently added
ISTM that this is an unfortunate but unlikely mistake, as -p is
used in all postgresql commands to signify the port number (psql,
pg_dump, pg_basebackup, createdb, ...).
Plus other tools already use -P for progress, such as rsync.
Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument.
Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr writes:
Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument. It's that
little frammish that makes this problem significant.
I do not see a strong case to make options with arguments case insensitive
as a general rule. If this is done for -p/-P, why not
(2014/02/28 2:39), Tom Lane wrote:
Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr writes:
Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument. It's that
little frammish that makes this problem significant.
I do not see a strong case to make options with arguments case insensitive
as a general rule.
On 02/25/2014 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Meh. A progress-reporting feature has use when the tool is working
towards completion of a clearly defined task. In the case of pgbench,
if you told it to run for -T 60 seconds rather than -T 10 seconds,
that's probably because you don't trust a
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than -p 65432 I'd typed -P 65432, thereby invoking
the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know that
that isn't what I
2014-02-25 20:49 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than -p 65432 I'd typed -P 65432, thereby invoking
the recently added --progress
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
because rather than -p 65432 I'd typed -P 65432, thereby invoking
the recently added
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
long --progress form. I won't argue that this feature is completely
useless, but for sure it's not something
12 matches
Mail list logo
