Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A function seems like the wrong way to go on this. SET has super-user > > protections we could use to control this but I am not sure what SET > > syntax to use. > > I don't like SET for it --- SET is for setting state that will persist > over some period of time, not for taking one-shot actions. We could > perhaps use a function that checks that it's been called by the > superuser. > > However, the real question is what is the use-case for this feature > anyway. Why should people want to reset the stats while the system > is running? If we had a clear example then it might be more apparent > what restrictions to place on it.
Yep, I think Andrew explained possible uses. You may want to reset the counters and run a benchmark to look at the results. Should we have RESET clear the counter, perhaps RESET STATCOLLECTOR? I don't think we have other RESET variables that can't be SET, but I don't see a problem with it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
