2010/1/24 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> writes:
>> Magnus Hagander escreveu:
>>> Off to make it two separate functions.. (seems much more user-friendly
>>> than a single function with an extra argument, IMHO)
>
>> +1. But as Simon said _single_ is too ugly. What about
>> pg_stat_reset_user_{function,relation}?
>
> That implies that the operations wouldn't work against system tables;
> which they do. I think a bigger problem is that "reset_single_table"
> seems like it might be talking about something like a TRUNCATE, ie,
> it's not clear that it means to reset counters rather than data.
> The pg_stat_ prefix is some help but not enough IMO. So I suggest
> pg_stat_reset_table_counters and pg_stat_reset_function_counters.
Doesn't the pg_stat_ part already say this?
> (BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
> patch: reset shared what?)
Well, it could also be made about the original pg_stat_reset()
function - reset what?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
