From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Resetting a single statistics counter |
Date: | 2010-01-24 18:21:19 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c1001241021o2d7a22cap6d818944913ede22@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/24 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 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.
Doesn't the pg_stat_ part already say this?
> (BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
> patch: reset shared what?)
Well, it could also be made about the original pg_stat_reset()
function - reset what?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-24 18:23:14 | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-24 18:20:25 | Re: commit fests |