| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |
| Date: | 2002-08-28 01:59:40 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0208281157330.14265-100000@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > But we should have some default to print some of the query,
>
> Why? So far you've been told by two different people (make that three
> now) that such a behavior is useless, and no one's weighed in in its
> favor ...
I completely agree. Nothing wrong with adding another guc variable and
since it is a debug variable people expect lots of verbosity.
Once I check out some other suggestions by Christopher I'll send a patch
in -- its only a 10 liner.
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 02:45:24 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-28 01:45:55 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 03:00:58 | Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length |
| Previous Message | ngpg | 2002-08-28 00:37:15 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |