Re: log_duration is redundant, no?

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If we consider that the prepare and the bind operations are important
> > (and I agree they can be), I wonder why do we remove the output we
> > have when log_min_duration_statement is set to 0 (I'm thinking of the
> > parse: and bind: lines)?
>
> Well, we remove it for the execute: too if you have only log_duration
> on. My view of this is that log_duration is meant to find out the total
> amount of time spent doing stuff, and you set log_min_duration_statement
> to whatever your threshold of pain is for the amount of time spent doing
> a single thing. If it's less than log_min_duration_statement then
> you're saying you don't care about the details of that individual step,
> only the aggregate runtime.

It might make sense to log _what_ is going on, without telling all the
little details, for example

LOG: parse duration: 0.250 ms
LOG: bind duration: 0.057 ms
LOG: execute my_query: SELECT * FROM shop WHERE $1 = $2
DETAIL: parameters: $1 = 'Clothes Clothes Clothes', $2 = 'Joe''s Widgets'

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support