Re: Checks for command string - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Checks for command string
Date
Msg-id 26442.1136163785@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checks for command string  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Checks for command string  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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.

> 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.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Checks for command string
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Checks for command string