On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:46:42 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> >> > My 0.02€: From a benchmarking perspective, ISTM that it makes sense to
> >> > include disconnection times, which are clearly linked to connections,
> >> > especially with -C. So I'd rather have the more meaningful figure even
> >> > at the price of a small change in an undocumented feature.
> >>
> >> +1. The aim of -C is trying to measure connection overhead which
> >> naturally includes disconnection overhead.
> >
> > I think it is better to measure disconnection delays when -C is specified in
> > pg 14. This seems not necessary when -C is not specified because pgbench just
> > reports "initial connection time".
>
> Ok.
>
> > However, what about pg13 or later? Do you think we should also change the
> > behavior of pg13 or later? If so, should we measure disconnection delay even
> > when -C is not specified in pg13?
>
> You mean "pg13 or before"?
Sorry, you are right. I mean "pg13 or before".
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
