On 10/07/18 20:34, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > On 06/27/2018 11:13 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: >>> 3) Is it intentional to only sample with log_min_duration_statement and >>> not also with log_duration? It seems like it should affect both. In >>> both cases, the name is too generic. Something called "log_sample_rate" >>> should sample **everything**. >> I do not think it could be useful to sample other case such as log_duration. >> >> But yes, the GUC is confusing and I am not comfortable to introduce a new >> GUC in >> my initial patch. >> >> Maybe we should adapt current GUC with something like : >> >> log_min_duration_statement = <time>,<sample rate>> >> This give : >> >> log_min_duration_statement = 0,0.1 >> >> Equivalent to : >> log_min_duration_statement = 0 >> log_sample_rate = 0.1 >> >> Thought? >> > > After reflection it seems a bad idea : > > * it breaks compatibility with external tools > * it introduce a kind of "composite" GUC which may add complexity to use. > For > example in pg_settings view.
Yes, I think that was a very bad idea. > What do you think of : log_min_duration_statement_sample ? Hmm. Not sure if that last word should be _sample, _sampling, _rate, or a combination of those. > Is it too long? I introduced idle_in_transaction_session_timeout, so I'm not one to say a setting name is too long :) -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
