>> Otherwise, he simplest possible adaptation, if it is required to have the
>> progress feature under fork emulation to pass it, is that under "fork
>> emulation" each processus reports its current progress instead of having a
>> collective summing.
>
> Perhaps that's worth doing. I agree with Fabien that full support of
> this feature in the process model is more trouble than it's worth,
> though, and I wouldn't scream loudly if we just didn't support it.
> --disable-thread-safety doesn't have to be entirely penalty-free.
Attached is patch version 5.
It includes this solution for fork emulation, one report per thread
instead of a global report. Some code duplication for that.
It also solves conflicts introduced by the long options patch.
Finally, I've added a latency measure as defended by Mitsumasa. However
the formula must be updated for the throttling patch.
Maybe I should have submitted a bunch of changes to pgbench in one patch.
I thought that separating orthogonal things made reviewing simpler so the
patches were more likely to pass, but I'm not so sure that the other
strategy would have been that bad.
--
Fabien.
