Re: four minor proposals for 9.5

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I agree. I don't think the idea of pushing this into the
> log_line_prefix stuff as a one-off is a very good one. Sure, we could
> wedge it in there, but we've got an existing precedent that everything
> that you can get with log_line_prefix also shows up in the CSV output
> file. And it's easy to imagine LOTS more counters that somebody might
> want to have. Time spent planning, time spent executing, time spent
> waiting for disk I/O, time spent returning results to client, and I'm
> sure people will think of many others. I think this will balloon out
> of control if we don't have a more systematic design for this sort of
> thing.

Can't we think of some infrastructure similar to what is done for
log_duration and log_min_duration_statement?
Current it prints like below:
LOG: duration: 343.000 ms statement: create table t1(c1 int);

Let us say if user wants to track lock wait time a statement has
spent, then enable some config parameter (either log_lock_duration
or some other convenient way)

LOG: lock duration: 'x' ms statement: create table t1(c1 int);

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com