Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200609072240.k87MeBw08153@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? ("Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Guillaume Smet wrote: > On 9/8/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > 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? > > I gave real use cases and we use it every day. It really helps us as a > PostgreSQL hosting company. > > The fact is that no tool could really exploit this behaviour before. I > agree it's a totally useless information if you don't have a tool to > analyze the logs. This is no longer the case as pgFouine can extract > this information and make it useful by aggregating it. > > Perhaps we could rename it to log_all_duration (my english is not that > good so I'm not sure it's a good name) and explain how it can be > useful in the documentation. If you are using an external tool, can't you just restrict what you display based on the logged duration? -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: