On 6/17/21 8:49 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 7:24 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>>> Seems like it should be straightforward to fix, though, with fixes
>>> already proposed (though I haven't studied them yet, will do).
>> I think that fixing logging is simple enough, thus a revert is not
>> necessary.
> I prepared a draft revert patch for discussion, just in case it comes
> in handy. This reverts "pgbench: Improve time logic.", but "pgbench:
> Synchronize client threads." remains (slightly rearranged).
>
> I'm on the fence TBH, I can see that it's really small things and it
> seems we have the patches, but it's late, late enough that
> benchmarking gurus are showing up to benchmark with it for real, and
> it's not great to be getting in the way of that with what is mostly
> refactoring work, so I don't think it would be a bad thing if we
> agreed to try again in 15.
Is there an identified issue beyond the concrete example Greg gave of
the timestamps?
We are still fixing a few things with potentially far more impact than
anything in pgbench, so fixing this wouldn't bother me that much, as
long as we get it done for Beta2.
> (A number of arguments for and against
> moving pgbench out of the postgresql source tree and release cycle
> occur to me, but I guess that's a topic for another thread.)
>
Indeed.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com