Re: log_duration is redundant, no?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Well, except for bind, all the log output display is zero cost, just a
> > printf(), as I remember. The only cost that is significant, I think, is
> > the timing of the query, and that is happening for all the setttings
> > discussed.
>
> On a machine with slow gettimeofday(), measuring duration at all is
> going to hurt, but apparently that is not Guillaume's situation ---
> what's costing him is sheer log volume. And remember that the
> slow-gettimeofday problem exists mainly on cheap PCs, not server-grade
> hardware. Based on his experience I'm prepared to believe that there
> is a use-case for logging just the duration for short queries.
>
> It seems like we should either remove the separate log_duration boolean
> or make it work as he suggests. I'm leaning to the second answer now.
> What's your vote?

#2, I think, but I am confused if you don't know the query, how valuable
is the log_duration.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +