>> I didn't noticed it. Could you give me the message id or URL?
>> 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
> While I agree that's confusing, I think that's actualyl a problem with
> 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.
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: