Re: Resetting a single statistics counter

From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 18:50:34
Message-ID: 4B5C967A.6050400@timbira.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane escreveu:
> 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.
>
Sure, much better. +1.

> (BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
> patch: reset shared what?)
>
BTW, what about that idea to overload pg_stat_reset()? The
pg_stat_reset_shared should be renamed to pg_stat_reset('foo') [1] where foo
is the class of objects that it is resetting. pg_stat_reset is not a so
suggestive name but that's one we already have; besides, it will be intuitive
for users.

[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg01317.php

--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bernd Helmle 2010-01-24 19:01:10 Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2010-01-24 18:45:33 Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns