Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:00:25 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Marina Polyakova <m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Ildus Kurbangaliev <i.kurbangaliev@postgrespro.ru>,
	Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Message-ID: <20181119200025.t2hpsmu724jp2fmf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811192044240.4640@lancre>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-Nov-19, Fabien COELHO wrote:

> 
> Hello Alvaro,
> 
> > I also think that the pgbench_error() patch should go in before the main
> > one.  It seems a bit pointless to introduce code using a bad API only to
> > fix the API together with all the new callers immediately afterwards.
> 
> I'm not that keen on this part of the patch, because ISTM that introduces
> significant and possibly costly malloc/free cycles when handling error,
> which do not currently exist in pgbench.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that.

> Related to Marina patch (triggered by reviewing the patches), I have
> submitted a refactoring patch which aims at cleaning up the internal state
> machine, so that additions and checking that all is well is simpler.
> 
> 	https://commitfest.postgresql.org/20/1754/

let me look at this one.

> It has been reviewed, I think I answered to the reviewer concerns, but the
> reviewer did not update the patch state on the cf app, so I do not know
> whether he is unsatisfied or if it was just forgotten.

Feel free to update a patch status to "needs review" yourself after
submitting a new version that in your opinion respond to a reviewer's
comments.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services