From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GUC variable renaming, redux |
Date: | 2007-09-24 17:04:25 |
Message-ID: | 1190653465.4181.215.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm sorry to raise this now. The earlier proposal for "track_" wasn't
> > supported by anyone that I can see, even though we decided to change the
> > way the stats parameters were arranged on those earlier threads.
>
> Well, there was at least one other person who liked "track" at the time:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00996.php
> which gave it about as much support as any other alternative that was
> mentioned :-(
>
> While I don't have any strong objection to changing "track" to "monitor",
> I'm not enthused by the other parts of your proposal.
> In particular
> I do object to using "activity" for the variable that is specifically
> *not* associated with feeding pg_stat_activity.
Thats a good point, that would be very confusing.
So it should be stats_command_string --> monitor_activity
...and the other one would be monitor_counts? OK, that fits for me.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin Pihlak | 2007-09-24 17:08:04 | Re: stored procedure stats in collector |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-09-24 17:00:56 | Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3 |