Re: Checks for command string

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checks for command string
Date: 2006-01-02 01:03:05
Message-ID: 26442.1136163785@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Because we want commits/rollbacks to be counted if any of them are on.

> Why do we want commits/rollbacks counted if we only have command string
> enabled?

Why not? Those counts are not either "tuple level" or "block level"
operations; the fact that the implementation sends them in the same
messages doesn't mean that there is any association in the user's eye.
Barring making a fourth GUC variable to control them (which seems like
overkill), I think it's a reasonably sane definition to say "we count
these if any stats are being collected". Doing what you propose would
simply expose an irrelevant implementation detail to users.

> The !(x || y) construct is really ugly and I will fix that in a simple
> commit now.

I can't agree with you on that opinion, either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-01-02 01:05:11 Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-01-02 00:59:06 Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-01-02 01:05:11 Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-01-02 00:59:06 Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits