On 06/27/2018 11:13 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
>> 3) Is it intentional to only sample with log_min_duration_statement and
>> not also with log_duration? It seems like it should affect both. In
>> both cases, the name is too generic. Something called "log_sample_rate"
>> should sample **everything**.
> I do not think it could be useful to sample other case such as log_duration.
>
> But yes, the GUC is confusing and I am not comfortable to introduce a new GUC in
> my initial patch.
>
> Maybe we should adapt current GUC with something like :
>
> log_min_duration_statement = <time>,<sample rate>>
> This give :
>
> log_min_duration_statement = 0,0.1
>
> Equivalent to :
> log_min_duration_statement = 0
> log_sample_rate = 0.1
>
> Thought?
>
After reflection it seems a bad idea :
* it breaks compatibility with external tools
* it introduce a kind of "composite" GUC which may add complexity to use. For
example in pg_settings view.
What do you think of : log_min_duration_statement_sample ? Is it too long?
I saw a few days ago this error on http://commitfest.cputube.org
postgres.sgml:5202: element xref: validity error : IDREF attribute linkend
references an unknown ID "log_min_duration_statement"
Patch attached with fix on linkend marker
Regards,
--
Adrien