| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Stats Collector |
| Date: | 2002-07-30 22:24:34 |
| Message-ID: | 22463.1028067874@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't like SET for it --- SET is for setting state that will persist
>> over some period of time, not for taking one-shot actions. We could
>> perhaps use a function that checks that it's been called by the
>> superuser.
> Should we have RESET clear the counter, perhaps RESET STATCOLLECTOR?
> I don't think we have other RESET variables that can't be SET, but I
> don't see a problem with it.
RESET is just a variant form of SET. It's not for one-shot actions
either (and especially not for one-shot actions against state that's
not accessible to SHOW or SET...)
I still like the function-call approach better.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joey Gartin | 2002-07-30 22:28:03 | Client Admin Tools |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-30 22:16:03 | Re: [GENERAL] Stats Collector |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-30 22:32:18 | Re: START TRANSACTION |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-30 22:21:40 | Re: WAL file location |