Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <email@example.com> 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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us firstname.lastname@example.org | (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