| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi, depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered |
| Date: | 2011-01-21 12:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | BBC98DC2-E197-4B54-B771-F1AA8FCD4A57@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan21, 2011, at 03:29 , Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Oh, you mean water that had some things you didn't want taken out
>>> of it?
>
>> Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
>> leave me with filtered water. What's "filtered" in this case is what
>> was passed through, not what was removed.
>
> I think it's pretty common to use the phrase "filtered out" to identify
> the stuff that gets removed by the filter, as opposed to what gets
> through. So we could possibly use "Rows Filtered Out: nnn". I still
> think that's more awkward than "Rows Removed: nnn" though.
"Rows Skipped: nnn", maybe?
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-21 12:39:01 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-01-21 12:21:15 | Re: SSI and Hot Standby |