Re: log_duration is redundant, no?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
Date: 2006-09-07 22:14:03
Message-ID: 200609071514.04595.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom,

> I don't find this very persuasive --- it sounds awfully messy, and in
> fact isn't that exactly the old behavior we got rid of because no one
> could understand it?

Well, we want analogous functionality. We could stand to have it
named/organized differently. But maybe we should hold those chages for
8.3, so that they can be tested properly?

I am finding that the log format prior to Bruce's change, which we were
using for TPCE, makes it very hard to do log digest analysis if you use
SPs or prepared queries at all.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Smet 2006-09-07 22:16:48 Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
Previous Message David Fetter 2006-09-07 22:12:26 Re: log_duration is redundant, no?