From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checks for command string |
Date: | 2006-01-02 01:03:05 |
Message-ID: | 26442.1136163785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-02 01:05:11 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-01-02 00:59:06 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-02 01:05:11 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-01-02 00:59:06 | Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits |