Re: Log_statement behaviour a little misleading?

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log_statement behaviour a little misleading?
Date: 2004-01-15 07:29:30
Message-ID: 4006415A.1000500@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:

>
>The fact that RI triggers issue SQL commands is an artifact of
>their implementation (and one that I believe Stephan and Jan would like
>to get rid of); they shouldn't be cluttering the log at all.
>
>
I am glad you mentioned that - I did find myself wondering why it was
necessary to go through the whole parse->plan->etc business, when the
backend "knows" that an access via the (required) primary key is going
to be available...

cheers

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ben Marklein 2004-01-15 07:42:56 Re: pg_dump/pg_restore problems with 7.4.1
Previous Message Chris Travers 2004-01-15 07:23:12 Mailing list? was Postgress and MYSQL