Horton

Re: pgbench - use pg logging capabilities

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-01-10T04:08:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 08:09:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> TBH, my recommendation would be to drop *all* of these likely()
> and unlikely() calls.  What evidence have you got that those are
> meaningfully improving the quality of the generated code?  And if
> they're buried inside macros, they certainly aren't doing anything
> useful in terms of documenting the code.

Yes.  I am wondering if we should not rework this part of the logging
with something like the attached.  My 2c, thoughts welcome.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. pgbench: Make more debug messages use common logging API

  2. pgbench: Use common logging API