From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Date: | 2006-09-07 23:04:48 |
Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10609071604k79c56253q3441f41cf856a736@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/8/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think his basic complaint is that doing the full logging pushup for
> even short-duration queries is too expensive, and that logging only the
> duration and not the query text or parameters makes a significant speed
> difference. I'm not at all sure that I buy that, but if it's true then
> subsequent filtering obviously doesn't help.
That's exactly my point. And on our highly loaded servers, the
log_duration behaviour makes the difference between:
- we have a clear overview of the server activity and
- we don't have any idea of what happens on this server (apart that
there are queries slower than X ms).
Regards,
--
Guillaume
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-07 23:52:40 | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-07 22:58:30 | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |