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

Re: stats_block_level

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Date: 2007-07-27 00:43:45
Message-ID: 5684.1185497025@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So maybe the *real* question to ask is why we have separate GUCs for
>> stats_row_level and stats_block_level.  Shouldn't we fold them into a
>> single switch?  It's hard to see what having just one of them turned on
>> will save.

> Any reason not to just fold them both into stats_start_collector ?

Well, then you couldn't turn collection on and off without restarting
the postmaster, which might be a pain.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2007-07-27 01:17:45
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-07-26 22:23:51
Subject: default_text_search_config and expression indexes

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