> My feelings on the patch split haven't changed; your three bullet points call
> for four separate patches. Conflicting patches are bad, but dependent patches
> are okay;
Indeed, this is the only solution if you do not want one patch. Note that
it will not possible to backtrack one of the patch but the last one
without conflicts.
> just disclose the dependency order. How about this: as a next step,
> please extract just this feature that I listed last Saturday:
>
> Patch (4): Redefine "latency" as reported by pgbench and report "lag" more.
>
> Once that's committed, we can move on to others.
Ok, I'll submit a first part, hopefully today, possibly the one you
suggest, about fixing and extending latency measure under --rate and
reporting it under progress.
--
Fabien.
