From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Date: | 2006-09-16 12:04:44 |
Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10609160504h29d3e27fmee3df6c98588ae94@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/16/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The only asymmetry in the thing is that if log_statement fired then
> we suppress duplicate printing of the query in the later duration log
> message (if any) for that query. But that seems like the right thing
> if you're at all concerned about log volume.
Perhaps I'm not representative of the users of these settings but when
I used log_statement='all', I didn't really care about the log volume.
I knew it really generates a lot of log lines and it slows down my
database.
My only concern was that we now have less information with
log_statement='all' than with log_min_duration_statement.
That said, I don't use it myself now: I use exclusively
log_min_duration_statement and log_duration. So if you think it's
better like that, it's ok for me.
Does anyone else have an opinion about this?
--
Guillaume
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-16 12:54:18 | Re: Reducing data type space usage |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-09-16 12:00:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c |