On Aug 3, 2007, at 14:59 , Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>>> Could I suggest renaming log_autovacuum to
>>>> log_autovacuum_min_duration?
>>
>>> Sure, whatever makes the most sense. In fact min_duration would
>>> be more
>>> consistent.
>>
>> I'm not sure I believe Greg's argument about needing more autovac
>> logging parameters, but since this one acts just like
>> log_min_duration_statement, I concur with renaming it.
> log_min_duration_autovacuum
>
> makes the most sense in comparison, IMHO.
True, but the log_min_duration_statement is kind of poorly named (as
is log_min_error_statement). log_statement is the overall concept,
min_duration and min_error further specialize the concept.
log_statement_min_duration and log_statement_min_error would have
been better, IMO. Question is whether it's better to move forward
with consistent naming or improve naming when the chance arises.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net