On 9/13/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I attached a patch to improve the consistency. It adds statement: for
> every case.

Isn't that just bloating the log?  And weren't you the one complaining
about log volumes to begin with?

As I told you, I don't care if we remove it or if we add it but having:
statement: query -> duration:  duration  statement: query
in one case and
statement: query -> duration:  duration  query
in the other case is not consistent.

Either we remove statement: for extended protocol or we add it but I
don't think it's a good idea to have a different behaviour between
log_duration and log_min_duration_statement.

As for bloating the log, it's already the case currently with regular
queries so it won't change that much. At least in the cases we have
here, it's negligible compared to the query text. IMHO, it's not an
argument to choose either solution.

IMHO, it's more logical to remove it as the text after statement: is
not a statement in the extended query protocol case. I chose the other
solution to be consistent with the choices Bruce made before.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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

Reply via email to