| From: | Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Log statement sample - take two |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 16:26:40 |
| Message-ID: | bafeeb96-7a1e-405e-ad63-d62ee77f2e45@anayrat.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/4/19 2:08 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Seems fine to me, mostly. I think the docs should explain how
> log_min_duration_statement interacts with log_min_duration_sample.
> Attached is a patch doing that, by adding one para to each GUC, along
> with some minor rewordings. I think the docs are mixing "sampling"
> vs. "logging" and "durations" vs. "statements" not sure.
Thanks for the rewording, it's clearer now.
>
> I also think the two new sampling GUCs (log_min_duration_sample and
> log_statement_sample_rate) should be next to each other. We're not
> ordering the GUCs alphabetically anyway.
+1
>
> I plan to make those changes and push in a couple days.
>
Thanks!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-04 16:58:20 | Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-11-04 16:06:44 | Re: v12 and pg_restore -f- |