On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I would like to solicit opinions on whether this is a good idea. I
>> understand that the patch author thinks it's a good idea, and I don't
>> have a strong position either way. But I want to hear what other
>> people think.
>
> If it makes pgbench more consistent with psql's command line options,
> it seems reasonable to me.
OK, I think it does that. So that's three votes in favor and none
opposed. I think I'd like to quibble with some of the names a bit,
though. The patch adds --fill-factor, but I think we should spell it
without the hyphen: --fillfactor. I think --quiet-log should be
spelled --quiet. I think --connect for each connection is not very
descriptive; maybe --connection-per-transaction or something, although
that's kind of long. I think -M should be aliased to --protocol, not
--query-mode. --skip-some-update is incorrectly pluralized; if that's
what we're going to use, it should be --skip-some-updates.
Alternatively, we could use --update-large-tables-only, which might
make the intent more clear.
On another note, it doesn't look like this updates the output of
pgbench --help, which seems important.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
