On Aug12, 2010, at 19:48 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Florian Pflug wrote:
>>> Attached is an updated version (v4).
>
>> I've attached a v5. No real code changes from Florian's version, just
>> some wording/style fixes and rework on the documentation.
>
> I'm looking through this patch now. It looks mostly good, but I am
> wondering just exactly what is the rationale for adding comment
> statements to the data structures, rather than ignoring them as before.
> It seems like a complete waste of logic, memory space, and cycles;
> moreover it renders the documentation's statement that comments
> "are ignored" incorrect. I did not find anything in the patch history
> explaining the point of that change.
To be able to include the comments (with an average latency of zero) in the latency report. This makes the latency
reportas self-explanatory as the original script was (Think latency report copy-and-pasted into an e-mail or wiki). It
alsohas the benefit of making the line numbers of the latency report agree to those of the original script, which
seemedlike a natural thing to do, and might make some sorts of post-processing easier. It does make doCustom() a bit
morecomplex, though.
Anyway, I guess the chance of adding this back is slim now that the patch is committed. Oh well.
Thanks for committing this, and
best regards,
Florian Pflug