Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't like SET for it --- SET is for setting state that will persist
>> over some period of time, not for taking one-shot actions. We could
>> perhaps use a function that checks that it's been called by the
>> superuser.
> Should we have RESET clear the counter, perhaps RESET STATCOLLECTOR?
> I don't think we have other RESET variables that can't be SET, but I
> don't see a problem with it.
RESET is just a variant form of SET. It's not for one-shot actions
either (and especially not for one-shot actions against state that's
not accessible to SHOW or SET...)
I still like the function-call approach better.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
