| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |