Tom Lane escreveu:
> That implies that the operations wouldn't work against system tables;
> which they do. I think a bigger problem is that "reset_single_table"
> seems like it might be talking about something like a TRUNCATE, ie,
> it's not clear that it means to reset counters rather than data.
> The pg_stat_ prefix is some help but not enough IMO. So I suggest
> pg_stat_reset_table_counters and pg_stat_reset_function_counters.
>
Sure, much better. +1.
> (BTW, a similar complaint could be made about the previously committed
> patch: reset shared what?)
>
BTW, what about that idea to overload pg_stat_reset()? The
pg_stat_reset_shared should be renamed to pg_stat_reset('foo') [1] where foo
is the class of objects that it is resetting. pg_stat_reset is not a so
suggestive name but that's one we already have; besides, it will be intuitive
for users.
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg01317.php
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
