Re: Resetting a single statistics counter

2010/1/24 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> 2010/1/24 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> 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.
>
>> Doesn't the pg_stat_ part already say this?
>
> My objection is that "reset_table" sounds like something you do to a
> table, not something you do to stats.  No, I don't think the prefix is
> enough to clarify that.

Fair enough, I'll just add the _counters to all three functions then.

>>> (BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
>>> patch: reset shared what?)
>
>> Well, it could also be made about the original pg_stat_reset()
>> function - reset what?
>
> In that case, there's nothing but the "stat" to suggest what gets
> reset, so I think it's less likely to be misleading than the current
> proposals.  But if we'd been designing all of these at once, yeah,
> I'd have argued for a more verbose name for that one too.

Ok.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/