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

• Re: Checks for command string at 2006-01-02 00:55:15 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: Checks for command string at 2006-01-02 01:11:27 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-patches by date

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