| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Postgres JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PGStatement#setPrepareThreshold |
| Date: | 2006-08-04 19:15:43 |
| Message-ID: | 14825.1154718943@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Did you like my idea of?
> statement: <protocol execute> ...
No.
> I want to keep the "statement:" prefix for scripts
> that process our log files, and because it is output by log_statement,
> which controls protocol output as well.
I think that's an irrelevant consideration, but it's driving you
to insist on unnecessarily complicated, confusing output. What's
wrong with "parse:", "bind:", and "execute:"? If you really must
have the word "statement" in there, then let's do "parse statement:"
"bind statement:" and "execute statement:". In any case we've got
to drop all the brackets and braces, they look too much like they might
be part of the statement string.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2006-08-04 19:16:12 | Re: PGStatement#setPrepareThreshold |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-04 18:56:53 | Re: PGStatement#setPrepareThreshold |