| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: log_min_duration_statement feature |
| Date: | 2003-04-23 02:31:26 |
| Message-ID: | 200304230231.h3N2VQ318678@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Yes. Consider declaring the "max value" in the GUC variable's info block
> > as INT_MAX/1000 instead of INT_MAX.
> >
> > (We should go through all of the GUC variables with an eye to places
> > where the max value is unrealistically high, but for the moment I'll
> > settle for not introducing any new sillinesses ...)
>
> OK, actually would it make more sense to just make it so that the duration
> threshold is given in microseconds instead of milliseconds? Then I wouldn't
> have to multiply and people can threshold lower as well...?
As I remember all our other timings are in milliseconds so unless there
is a good reason, we should be consistent.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-04-23 03:38:21 | log_min_duration_statement #2 |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-04-23 01:46:05 | Re: log_min_duration_statement feature |