Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1aP7rV-0001bH-9P for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:09:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aP7rU-0006l1-RE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:09:12 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aP7rS-0006jT-Pa for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:09:10 +0000 Received: from smtp-auth.no-ip.com ([8.23.224.61] helo=out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aP7rP-0000vB-MT for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:09:09 +0000 X-No-IP: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [194.78.224.83]) (Authenticated sender: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 08FE440170A; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 04:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F23B4544; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:09:03 -0300 (CLT) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:09:03 +0100 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Fabien COELHO Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff Message-ID: <20160129120903.GA765057@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Fabien COELHO wrote: > The answer is essentially yes, the field is needed for the "aggregated" mode > where this specific behavior is used. OK, thanks, that looks better to me. Can you now appreciate why I asked for split patches? If I had to go over the big patch I probably wouldn't have been able to read through each to make sense of it. I pushed this, along with a few more tweaks, mostly adding comments and moving functions so that related things are together. I hope I didn't break anything. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers