Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 489.1157669910@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: log_duration is redundant, no? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: log_duration is redundant, no?
Re: log_duration is redundant, no? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Well, except for bind, all the log output display is zero cost, just a
> printf(), as I remember. The only cost that is significant, I think, is
> the timing of the query, and that is happening for all the setttings
> discussed.
On a machine with slow gettimeofday(), measuring duration at all is
going to hurt, but apparently that is not Guillaume's situation ---
what's costing him is sheer log volume. And remember that the
slow-gettimeofday problem exists mainly on cheap PCs, not server-grade
hardware. Based on his experience I'm prepared to believe that there
is a use-case for logging just the duration for short queries.
It seems like we should either remove the separate log_duration boolean
or make it work as he suggests. I'm leaning to the second answer now.
What's your vote?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: