2010/1/24 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > 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.
Fair enough, I'll just add the _counters to all three functions then. >>> (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. Ok. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
