Re: psql \watch versus \timing
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: psql \watch versus \timing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 53FB94BB.5070500@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: psql \watch versus \timing (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: psql \watch versus \timing
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/25/2014 10:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08/25/2014 09:22 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >>> I agree that refactoring this would be nice in the long-term, and I also >>> agree that it's probably OK as it is in the short-term. I don't like the >>> name PSQLexecInternal, though. PSQLexec is used for "internal" commands >>> anyway. In fact it's backwards, because PSQLexecInternal is used for >>> non-internal queries, given by \watch, while PSQLexec is used for internal >>> commands. >> >> Agreed. So what about PSQLexecCommon (inspired by >> the relation between LWLockAcquireCommon and LWLockAcquire)? >> Or any better name? > > Actually, perhaps it would be better to just copy-paste PSQLexec, and > modify the copy to suite \watch's needs. (PSQLexecWatch? > SendWatchQuery?). PSQLexec doesn't do much, and there isn't very much > overlap between what \watch wants and what other PSQLexec callers want. > \watch wants timing output, others don't. \watch doesn't want > transaction handling. Do we want --echo-hidden to print the \watch'd > query? Not sure.. BTW, I just noticed that none of the callers of PSQLexec pass "start_xact=true". So that part of the function is dead code. We might want to remove it, and replace with a comment noting that PSQLexec never starts a new transaction block, even in autocommit-off mode. (I know you're hacking on this, so I didnn't want to joggle your elbow by doing it right now) - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: