Re: Server instrumentation patch

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server instrumentation patch
Date: 2005-06-24 18:59:31
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E490E717@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Paesold [mailto:mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 17:53
> To: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server instrumentation patch
>
> > My main concern is that the names are inconsistent for no obvious
> > reason.
>
> That could be fixed by having:
> pg_database_size(name)
> pg_database_size(oid)
>
> The original idea was probably to name "internal" functions
> with pg_ and
> more user friendly ones without pg_. That does not mean it's
> a good idea.

Yes, agreed - it could be fixed that way easily. If the inclusion of
/all/ functions is for backwards compatibility though, then that change
is somewhat more of a problem.

>
> Well, I don't feel this is really bloat. I have been using
> them since the
> creation of the contrib module and have found them quite useful.

Fair enough.

Regards, Dave.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-24 19:08:14 Re: Server instrumentation patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-24 17:46:33 Re: Server instrumentation patch