On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:53:40AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
On 8/1/19 12:04 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
Hi,
As we are at the end of this CF and there is still discussions about whether we
should revert log_statement_sample_limit and log_statement_sample_rate, or try
to fix it in v12.
I moved this patch to next commit fest and change status from "ready for
commiter" to "need review". I hope I didn't make a mistake.
Thanks. The RFC status was clearly stale, so thanks for updating. I should
have done that after my review. I think the patch would be moved to the
next CF at the end, but I might be wrong. In any case, I don't think
you've done any mistake.
As for the sampling patch - I think we'll end up reverting the feature for
v12 - it's far too late to rework it at this point. Sorry about that, I
know it's not a warm feeling when you get something done, and then it gets
reverted on the last minute. :-(
Don't worry, I understand. It is better to add straigforward GUC in v13 than
confusionning in v12 we will regret.
OK, I have the revert ready. The one thing I'm wondering about is
whether we need to revert log_transaction_sample_rate too? I think it's
pretty much independent feature, so I think we can keep that. Opinions?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
