Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging

2006-11-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. I think it would be useful to have the log results from a test program in

Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging

2006-11-01 Thread Dave Cramer
On 31-Oct-06, at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. to be honest I don't know, and looking at the logs I suspect that this is just

Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging

2006-11-01 Thread Dave Cramer
On 1-Nov-06, at 6:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. I think it would be useful

Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging

2006-11-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 23:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. I think it would be useful to have the log results

Re: [HACKERS] Extended protocol logging

2006-10-31 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are logs from Beta 2. With what logging settings? log_duration has rather different behavior from what it used to do. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't