Re: stats_block_level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: stats_block_level
Date
Msg-id 200707311947.l6VJlaZ24125@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stats_block_level  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Methinks it should be: stats_<something>, so that people find it in the
> >> same place as stats_query_string, which is still there.
> 
> > Hum, but the order in postgresql.conf is arbitrary, right?
> 
> I concur with Simon that it should have some relationship to
> stats_query_string.  However, stats_collection doesn't appeal to me
> because that sounds like it would subsume stats_query_string (it seems
> like a master control toggle, as stats_start_collector used to be).
> Maybe something like stats_count_events?

stats_enable_counters, or just stats_counters?

We should prefix it with "stats".  I understand the verb issue, but
putting the same prefix for the same module is more important ---
effectively it is stats.collection.  Someday we might even use dots so
we can have multiple levels of detail, e.g. stats.block.accumulate or
something like that.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Rafael Azevedo"
Date:
Subject: feature suggestion
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: feature suggestion