Re: [PATCH] add long options to pgbench (submission 1)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add long options to pgbench (submission 1)
Date: 2013-06-25 16:11:06
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZtE32KMKa3pfvWf3g6CC=wX9OfsSXSWz-cqvJtyhQ9Kg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> Please fix that and re-send the patch.
>> Find attached diff wrt current master.
> Thanks.

I would like to solicit opinions on whether this is a good idea. I
understand that the patch author thinks it's a good idea, and I don't
have a strong position either way. But I want to hear what other
people think.

Anyone have an opinion?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-06-25 16:15:01 Re: isolationtester and 'specs' subdirectory
Previous Message Yuri Levinsky 2013-06-25 16:08:46 Re: Hash partitioning.