From: | Adrien NAYRAT <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | "Kuroda, Hayato" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Log a sample of transactions |
Date: | 2019-01-26 10:44:58 |
Message-ID: | fa577d4b-088c-8de9-a4f3-0aa63e3f2a37@anayrat.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/23/19 3:12 AM, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> Dear Adrien,
Hello Kuroda-san
>
>
> ---- config.sgml ----
> You must document the behavior when users change the parameter during a transaction.
> あやしい・・・
Agreed, I added a wording.
>
> ---- postgres.c ----
> I give you three comments.
>
>> /* flag for logging statements in this transaction */
> I think "a" or the plural form should be used instead of "this"
Fixed
>
> * xact_is_sampled is left at the end of a transaction.
> Should the parameter be set to false at the lowest layer of the transaction system?
> I understand it is unnecessary for the functionality, but it have more symmetry.
Yes, it is not necessary. I wonder what is more important : keep some
kind of symmetry or avoid unnecessary code (which can be source of mistake)?
>
> * check_log_duration should be used only when postgres check the duration.
> But I'm not sure a new function such as check_is_sampled is needed because A processing in new function will be as almost same as check_log_duration.
I agree, I asked myself the same question and I preferred to keep code
simple.
Here is 4th patch.
Thanks!
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
log_xact-4.patch | text/x-patch | 6.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2019-01-26 11:09:41 | Re: [PATCH] Allow UNLISTEN during recovery |
Previous Message | Lætitia Avrot | 2019-01-26 09:50:15 | [Patch] Log10 and hyperbolic functions for SQL:2016 compliance |