Re: Resetting a single statistics counter

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Resetting a single statistics counter
Date: 2010-01-24 18:13:52
Message-ID: 28548.1264356832@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander escreveu:
>> Off to make it two separate functions.. (seems much more user-friendly
>> than a single function with an extra argument, IMHO)

> +1. But as Simon said _single_ is too ugly. What about
> pg_stat_reset_user_{function,relation}?

That implies that the operations wouldn't work against system tables;
which they do. I think a bigger problem is that "reset_single_table"
seems like it might be talking about something like a TRUNCATE, ie,
it's not clear that it means to reset counters rather than data.
The pg_stat_ prefix is some help but not enough IMO. So I suggest
pg_stat_reset_table_counters and pg_stat_reset_function_counters.

(BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
patch: reset shared what?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-01-24 18:13:55 Re: tab completion for prepared transactions?
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2010-01-24 18:09:54 Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns