On 2018-Nov-19, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Alvaro,
>
> > I also think that the pgbench_error() patch should go in before the main
> > one. It seems a bit pointless to introduce code using a bad API only to
> > fix the API together with all the new callers immediately afterwards.
>
> I'm not that keen on this part of the patch, because ISTM that introduces
> significant and possibly costly malloc/free cycles when handling error,
> which do not currently exist in pgbench.
Oh, I wasn't aware of that.
> Related to Marina patch (triggered by reviewing the patches), I have
> submitted a refactoring patch which aims at cleaning up the internal state
> machine, so that additions and checking that all is well is simpler.
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/20/1754/
let me look at this one.
> It has been reviewed, I think I answered to the reviewer concerns, but the
> reviewer did not update the patch state on the cf app, so I do not know
> whether he is unsatisfied or if it was just forgotten.
Feel free to update a patch status to "needs review" yourself after
submitting a new version that in your opinion respond to a reviewer's
comments.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
