On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 20.06.2012 21:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On 20 June 2012 18:42, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I'm sure Jeff submitted this because of the need for a standard test,
>>>> rather than the wish to actually modify pgbench itself.
>>>>
>>>> Can I suggest that we include a list of standard scripts with pgbench
>>>> for this purpose? These can then be copied alongside the binary when
>>>> we do an install.
>>>
>>> I was thinking along similar lines myself. At the least, I think we
>>> can't continue to add a short option for every new test type.
>>> Instead, maybe we could have --test-type=WHATEVER, and perhaps that
>>> then reads whatever.sql from some compiled-in directory. That would
>>> allow us to sanely support a moderately large number of tests.
>
> We could call the --test-type option -f, and the "compiled-in directory"
> could be the current directory ;-).
Well, that sounds a lot like "let's reject the patch". Which would be
OK with me, I guess, but if the goal is to make it easy for all
developers to run that particular test, I'm not sure that's getting us
there.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
