From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Resetting a single statistics counter |
Date: | 2010-01-24 18:50:34 |
Message-ID: | 4B5C967A.6050400@timbira.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escreveu:
> That implies that the operations wouldn't work against system tables;
> which they do. I think a bigger problem is that "reset_single_table"
> seems like it might be talking about something like a TRUNCATE, ie,
> it's not clear that it means to reset counters rather than data.
> The pg_stat_ prefix is some help but not enough IMO. So I suggest
> pg_stat_reset_table_counters and pg_stat_reset_function_counters.
>
Sure, much better. +1.
> (BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
> patch: reset shared what?)
>
BTW, what about that idea to overload pg_stat_reset()? The
pg_stat_reset_shared should be renamed to pg_stat_reset('foo') [1] where foo
is the class of objects that it is resetting. pg_stat_reset is not a so
suggestive name but that's one we already have; besides, it will be intuitive
for users.
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg01317.php
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2010-01-24 19:01:10 | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns |
Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2010-01-24 18:45:33 | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns |