Re: log_duration is redundant, no?

On 9/16/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, considering that the parse and bind may take longer than the
> execute, I hardly think we want to ignore them for log_duration
> purposes. And we agreed that if log_duration is on and
> log_min_duration_statement is not triggered, log_duration should print
> *only* duration. So I'm not sure what else you expected.

I don't know exactly what I expected. I'm just surprised to have only
the duration when log_statement is set to all.
If we consider that the prepare and the bind operations are important
(and I agree they can be), I wonder why do we remove the output we
have when log_min_duration_statement is set to 0 (I'm thinking of the
parse: and bind: lines)?

(sorry for the double post, I forgot to cc: the list)