Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Because we want commits/rollbacks to be counted if any of them are on.
> > Why do we want commits/rollbacks counted if we only have command string
> > enabled?
> Why not?  Those counts are not either "tuple level" or "block level"
> operations; the fact that the implementation sends them in the same
> messages doesn't mean that there is any association in the user's eye.
> Barring making a fourth GUC variable to control them (which seems like
> overkill), I think it's a reasonably sane definition to say "we count
> these if any stats are being collected".  Doing what you propose would
> simply expose an irrelevant implementation detail to users.

OK.  Don't we need to document this somewhere?

> > The !(x || y) construct is really ugly and I will fix that in a simple
> > commit now.
> I can't agree with you on that opinion, either.

Oops, done.

The good news is I found out why stat_command_string is causing such a
large performance hit.  I will post tonight or tomorrow on it.

  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to