Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> 2010/1/24 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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.
>> (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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
