| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Resetting a single statistics counter |
| Date: | 2010-01-24 18:13:52 |
| Message-ID: | 28548.1264356832@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander escreveu:
>> Off to make it two separate functions.. (seems much more user-friendly
>> than a single function with an extra argument, IMHO)
> +1. But as Simon said _single_ is too ugly. What about
> pg_stat_reset_user_{function,relation}?
That implies that the operations wouldn't work against system tables;
which they do. I think a bigger problem is that "reset_single_table"
seems like it might be talking about something like a TRUNCATE, ie,
it's not clear that it means to reset counters rather than data.
The pg_stat_ prefix is some help but not enough IMO. So I suggest
pg_stat_reset_table_counters and pg_stat_reset_function_counters.
(BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
patch: reset shared what?)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-01-24 18:13:55 | Re: tab completion for prepared transactions? |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2010-01-24 18:09:54 | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns |