On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Dickson S. Guedes" <listas@guedesoft.net> writes:
>> > Em Qua, 2009-05-06 s 09:37 -0400, Tom Lane escreveu:
>> >> Seems like the right policy for that is "run pgbench in its own
>> >> database".
>>
>> > A text warning about this could be shown at start of pgbench if the
>> > target database isn't named "pgbench", for examplo, or just some text
>> > could be added to the docs.
>>
>> There already is a prominent warning in the pgbench docs:
>>
>> Caution
>>
>> pgbench -i creates four tables accounts, branches, history, and
>> tellers, destroying any existing tables of these names. Be very
>> careful to use another database if you have tables having these
>> names!
>
> Holy Handgrenade, what a huge footgun! It doesn't even have a
> conceivable upside.
>
> The table names "accounts" and "history" are fairly common and a caution
> isn't a sufficient safeguard on production data. We know the manual
> rarely gets read *after* a problem, let alone beforehand.
>
> We should check they are the correct tables before we just drop them.
> Perhaps check for the comment "Tables for pgbench application. Not
> production data" on the tables, which would be nice to add anyway.
I bet it would be just as good and a lot simpler to do what someone
suggested upthread, namely s/^/pgbench_/
...Robert
