Horton

Re: Error on pgbench logs

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, rulyox@gmail.com, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-16T07:49:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 08:58:17AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Actually it would work if both are mixed: the code would aggregate a sample.
> However it does not look very useful to do that, so it is arbitrary
> forbidden. Not sure whether this is that useful to prevent this use case.

Okay, noted.

> Attached v4 improves comments and moves tx as an assert.

Thanks.  I have not tested in details but that looks rather sane to me
at quick glance.  I'll look at that more tomorrow.

> + * The function behaviors changes depending on sample_rate (a fraction of
> + * transaction is reported) and agg_interval (transactions are aggregated
> + * over the interval and reported once).

The first part of this sentence has an incorrect grammar.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Fix pgbench timestamp bugs.

  2. pgbench: Improve time logic.

  3. Make [U]INT64CONST safe for use in #if conditions.

  4. Teach libpq to detect integer overflow in the row count of a PGresult.