| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: log_autovacuum |
| Date: | 2007-08-03 20:44:07 |
| Message-ID: | 03ABF927-E42D-45A2-B64E-FCC77543E816@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 3, 2007, at 14:59 , Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>>> Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to
>>>> log_autovacuum_min_duration?
>>
>>> Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_duration would
>>> be more
>>> consistent.
>>
>> I'm not sure I believe Greg's argument about needing more autovac
>> logging parameters, but since this one acts just like
>> log_min_duration_statement, I concur with renaming it.
> log_min_duration_autovacuum
>
> makes the most sense in comparison, IMHO.
True, but the log_min_duration_statement is kind of poorly named (as
is log_min_error_statement). log_statement is the overall concept,
min_duration and min_error further specialize the concept.
log_statement_min_duration and log_statement_min_error would have
been better, IMO. Question is whether it's better to move forward
with consistent naming or improve naming when the chance arises.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-03 22:16:44 | Re: clog_buffers to 64 in 8.3? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-08-03 20:33:03 | Re: log_autovacuum |