>> I didn't noticed it. Could you give me the message id or URL?
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/634/
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMsr+YFUjJytRyV4J-16bEoiZyH=4nj+sQ7JP9ajwz=b4dm...@mail.gmail.com#CAMsr+YFUjJytRyV4J-16bEoiZyH=4nj+sQ7JP9ajwz=b4dm...@mail.gmail.com


>> Another issue is inconsistency with log duration, which shows the the
>> elapsed time for each execute message. I think statement timeout
>> should be consistent with statement duration. Otherwise users will be
>> confused.
> While I agree that's confusing, I think that's actualyl a problem with
> log_duration.
> log_duration is really more of an internal trace parameter that should be
> named debug_log_duration or something IMO. It also fails to print the
> message type, which makes it even more confusing since it for a typical
> extended protocl query it usually logs 3 durations with no indication of
> which is what.

It's definitely a poor design.

> Users should be using log_min_duration_statement. You know, the confusingly
> named one. Or is it log_duration_min_statement or
> log_statement_min_duration or ...?
> Yeah, log_duration is confusing to the point I think it needs a comment
> like "To record query run-time you probably want
> log_min_duration_statement, not log_duration".

I'm confused. Regarding the timing whether duration is emitted at sync
or each message, log_duration and log_min_duration_statement behave
exactly same, no? If so, log_min_duration_statement is not consistent
with statement_timeout, anyway.

Best regards,
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to