|From:||Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 8/1/19 12:04 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
>> As we are at the end of this CF and there is still discussions about whether we
>> should revert log_statement_sample_limit and log_statement_sample_rate, or try
>> to fix it in v12.
>> I moved this patch to next commit fest and change status from "ready for
>> commiter" to "need review". I hope I didn't make a mistake.
> Thanks. The RFC status was clearly stale, so thanks for updating. I should
> have done that after my review. I think the patch would be moved to the
> next CF at the end, but I might be wrong. In any case, I don't think
> you've done any mistake.
> As for the sampling patch - I think we'll end up reverting the feature for
> v12 - it's far too late to rework it at this point. Sorry about that, I
> know it's not a warm feeling when you get something done, and then it gets
> reverted on the last minute. :-(
Don't worry, I understand. It is better to add straigforward GUC in v13 than
confusionning in v12 we will regret.
|Next Message||Daniel Migowski||2019-08-02 08:25:30||Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization|
|Previous Message||Sergei Kornilov||2019-08-02 07:33:31||Re: complier warnings from ecpg tests|