V11 is just a rebase after the reindentation patches.
> Indeed, yet again, I forgot the attachement:-(
>
>>> I stared at the new test case for a while, and I must say it looks very
>>> cryptic. It's not exactly this patch's fault - all the pgbench tests are
>>> cryptic -
>>
>> Perl is cryptic. Regexprs are cryptic.
>>
>>> but I think we need to do something about that before adding any more
>>> tests. I'm not sure what exactly, but I'd like them to be more like
>>> pg_regress tests, where you have an expected output and you compare it
>>> with the actual output. I realize that's not easy, because there are a lot
>>> of varying numbers in the output, but we've got to do something.
>>>
>>> As a good first step, I wish the pgbench() function used named arguments.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> You would have something like this:
>>>
>>> my $elapsed = pgbench(
>>> test_name => 'pgbench progress',
>>> opts => '-T 2 -P 1 -l --aggregate-interval=1'
>>
>> I do not like them much in perl because it changes the code significantly,
>> but why not. That would be another patch anyway.
>>
>> A lighter but efficient option would be to add a few comments on the larger
>> calls, see attached.
>
> Please really find the attachement, and do not hesitate to share spare a few
> grey cells so that I will not forget about them in the futur:-)
>
>
--
Fabien.
