Re: Checks for command string

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Because we want commits/rollbacks to be counted if any of them are on.
>
> > Why do we want commits/rollbacks counted if we only have command string
> > enabled?
>
> Why not? Those counts are not either "tuple level" or "block level"
> operations; the fact that the implementation sends them in the same
> messages doesn't mean that there is any association in the user's eye.
> Barring making a fourth GUC variable to control them (which seems like
> overkill), I think it's a reasonably sane definition to say "we count
> these if any stats are being collected". Doing what you propose would
> simply expose an irrelevant implementation detail to users.

OK. Don't we need to document this somewhere?

> > The !(x || y) construct is really ugly and I will fix that in a simple
> > commit now.
>
> I can't agree with you on that opinion, either.

Oops, done.

The good news is I found out why stat_command_string is causing such a
large performance hit. I will post tonight or tomorrow on it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073