Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81153431FBF;
	Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 9ftBLCwcmVFv; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:01:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AE0431FAE;
	Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:01:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Adrian Perez de Castro <aperez@igalia.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <20091123015339.79e51228@hikari>
References: <1258762638-22905-1-git-send-email-aperez@igalia.com>
	<87r5rqks0m.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <20091123015339.79e51228@hikari>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:00:55 +0100
Message-ID: <87fx85g7i0.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] Support for printing file paths in new command
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:01:10 -0000

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:53:39 +0100, Adrian Perez de Castro <aperez@igalia.com> wrote:
> IMHO it would be nice to have the messages-per-second information as
> well in verbose mode before making it the default. I think I could cook
> up a patch for that, but printing messages-per-second would mean calling
> gettimeofday() for each processed file. Do you think that will be
> acceptable from a performance POV? (Of course using silent mode would
> still only call it once per second).

Or how about using the existing timer to cause a rate to be printed
between the message output once per second?

-Carl