On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> The problem with a separate column is that it makes the table very
> wide (some of those functions have very long name).
Yeah, that's one thing I don't like about what you actually did,
either - it made some of the tables much wider.
>> sure. Or maybe we could have a separate table that just gives the
>> equivalences between stats table-column pairs and functions. Of those
>> ideas, I think I like "separate table in the same column" the best.
>
> That one would at least work. You mean basically:
>
> |pg_stat_database.xact_commit|pg_stat_get_db_xact_commit|
> |pg_stat_database.xact_rollback|pg_stat_get_db_xact_rollback|
>
> etc etc for each column/function, right?
Yeah.
>> Also, I wonder if we should promote section 27.2.2.1. Other Statistics
>> Functions to 27.2.3.
>
> I was considering that, but given that 27.2.2 is "viewing statistics",
> it does seem like a sub-section to that.. Though maybe if we make the
> lis tof views into their own section *as well*, so we have one sectoin
> for "how to view it", one for "views" and one for "other functions" it
> would make more sense.
My thought was that a good half of those "other statistics functions"
don't have all that much to do with viewing anything, so the logical
argument for that section to need to be under "viewing statistics"
seems a bit weak.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company