Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Checks for command string

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: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checks for command string
Date: 2006-01-02 01:03:05
Message-ID: 26442.1136163785@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Because we want commits/rollbacks to be counted if any of them are on.

> Why do we want commits/rollbacks counted if we only have command string
> enabled?

Why not?  Those counts are not either "tuple level" or "block level"
operations; the fact that the implementation sends them in the same
messages doesn't mean that there is any association in the user's eye.
Barring making a fourth GUC variable to control them (which seems like
overkill), I think it's a reasonably sane definition to say "we count
these if any stats are being collected".  Doing what you propose would
simply expose an irrelevant implementation detail to users.

> The !(x || y) construct is really ugly and I will fix that in a simple
> commit now.

I can't agree with you on that opinion, either.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-01-02 01:05:11
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-01-02 00:59:06
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-01-02 01:05:11
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-01-02 00:59:06
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group