Re: log_min_duration_statement feature

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: log_min_duration_statement feature
Date: 2003-04-22 15:52:31
Message-ID: 3364.1051026751@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> The only thing that I'm not 100% on is the ong >= int * 1000 comparison I
> do - will that overflow if the user has supplied max int?

Yes. Consider declaring the "max value" in the GUC variable's info block
as INT_MAX/1000 instead of INT_MAX.

(We should go through all of the GUC variables with an eye to places
where the max value is unrealistically high, but for the moment I'll
settle for not introducing any new sillinesses ...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Graff 2003-04-22 23:34:57 Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-04-22 15:37:32 log_min_duration_statement feature