On Aug 3, 2007, at 14:59 , Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to
log_autovacuum_min_duration?
Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_duration would
be more
consistent.
I'm not sure I believe Greg's argument about needing more autovac
logging parameters, but since this one acts just like
log_min_duration_statement, I concur with renaming it.
log_min_duration_autovacuum
makes the most sense in comparison, IMHO.
True, but the log_min_duration_statement is kind of poorly named (as
is log_min_error_statement). log_statement is the overall concept,
min_duration and min_error further specialize the concept.
log_statement_min_duration and log_statement_min_error would have
been better, IMO. Question is whether it's better to move forward
with consistent naming or improve naming when the chance arises.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
---------------------------(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
