Thread: Re: [PATCH] pgbench: improve \sleep meta command

Re: [PATCH] pgbench: improve \sleep meta command

From
Fujii Masao
Date:

On 2021/03/17 16:40, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
> 
> Thank you for updating the patch.

Thanks for the review!


> I understand that you don't want to change the current specification.
> 
> ```diff
> +               if (usec == 0)
> +               {
> +                       char       *c = var;
> +
> +                       /* Skip sign */
> +                       if (*c == '+' || *c == '-')
> +                               c++;
> ```
> 
> In my understanding the skip is not necessary, because
> plus sign is already removed in the executeMetaCommand() and minus value can be returned by atoi().

Yes, you're right. I removed that check from the patch.
Attached is the updated version of the patch.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Attachment

RE: [PATCH] pgbench: improve \sleep meta command

From
"kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Dear Fujii-san,

I confirmed your patch and some parse functions, and I agree
the check condition in evaluateSleep() is correct.
No problem is found.

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED


Re: [PATCH] pgbench: improve \sleep meta command

From
Fujii Masao
Date:

On 2021/03/19 10:02, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
> 
> I confirmed your patch and some parse functions, and I agree
> the check condition in evaluateSleep() is correct.
> No problem is found.

Thanks for reviewing the patch!
Barring any objection, I will commit this patch.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



Re: [PATCH] pgbench: improve \sleep meta command

From
Fujii Masao
Date:

On 2021/03/19 10:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/03/19 10:02, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com wrote:
>> Dear Fujii-san,
>>
>> I confirmed your patch and some parse functions, and I agree
>> the check condition in evaluateSleep() is correct.
>> No problem is found.
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the patch!
> Barring any objection, I will commit this patch.

Pushed. Thanks!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION