Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190804191037.em6rmlvxjpcsjtqu@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling (Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:53:40AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote: >On 8/1/19 12:04 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As we are at the end of this CF and there is still discussions about whether we >>> should revert log_statement_sample_limit and log_statement_sample_rate, or try >>> to fix it in v12. >>> I moved this patch to next commit fest and change status from "ready for >>> commiter" to "need review". I hope I didn't make a mistake. >>> >> >> Thanks. The RFC status was clearly stale, so thanks for updating. I should >> have done that after my review. I think the patch would be moved to the >> next CF at the end, but I might be wrong. In any case, I don't think >> you've done any mistake. >> >> As for the sampling patch - I think we'll end up reverting the feature for >> v12 - it's far too late to rework it at this point. Sorry about that, I >> know it's not a warm feeling when you get something done, and then it gets >> reverted on the last minute. :-( >> > >Don't worry, I understand. It is better to add straigforward GUC in v13 than >confusionning in v12 we will regret. > OK, I have the revert ready. The one thing I'm wondering about is whether we need to revert log_transaction_sample_rate too? I think it's pretty much independent feature, so I think we can keep that. Opinions? regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: