| From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? |
| Date: | 2002-09-26 08:14:23 |
| Message-ID: | mrf5pukio3cmn8dhps6uc584o1tu3b50jf@4ax.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:40:03 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Item 3 is the most controversial. Some say sum all tuple counts, i.e.
>sum INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. That just seems to messy to me. I think
>summing only the matching tags has the highest probability of returning
>a meaningful number.
[Trying to keep it short this time]
I still believe that there is more than one correct answer; it just
depends on what the dba intends. So I proposed a syntax change for
letting the dba explicitly mark the statements she/he wants to affect
tuple count and oid.
-> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-09/msg00720.php
Unfortunately I tried to summarize all other proposals and the mail
got so long that nobody read it to the end :-(
Servus
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-09-26 08:35:44 | Performance while loading data and indexing |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-26 05:39:55 | Re: pltcl.so patch |