Re: log_duration
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: log_duration
Дата
Msg-id
10231.1045109729@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: log_duration (Bruce Momjian)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
log_duration "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: log_duration Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: log_duration Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Re: log_duration Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: log_duration Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: log_duration Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: log_duration Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: log_duration Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Re: log_duration Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
Re: log_duration "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: log_duration Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: log_duration "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: log_duration Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: log_duration Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Bruce Momjian writes: > One nice thing is that each element is orthoginal. But, for the > functionality desired, we have to merge log_statement and log_duration > and have it print for statements taking over X milliseconds. I have no > problem adding it, but it has to be clear it isn't orthoginal but is a > conditional combination of two other parameters. Actually, I was wondering if we shouldn't *replace* the current log_duration with a combined form (that specifies a minimum interesting duration). I can't quite see the need for orthogonality here. The only reason you'd care about query duration is that you're looking for the slow ones, no? So why bother logging the fast ones? Besides, you can specify min-duration zero if you really want 'em all. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления