Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't like SET for it --- SET is for setting state that will persist
> >> over some period of time, not for taking one-shot actions. We could
> >> perhaps use a function that checks that it's been called by the
> >> superuser.
>
> > Should we have RESET clear the counter, perhaps RESET STATCOLLECTOR?
> > I don't think we have other RESET variables that can't be SET, but I
> > don't see a problem with it.
>
> RESET is just a variant form of SET. It's not for one-shot actions
> either (and especially not for one-shot actions against state that's
> not accessible to SHOW or SET...)
>
> I still like the function-call approach better.
OK, so you are suggesting a function call, and a check in there to make
sure it is the superuser. Comments?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026