Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
OK, so you are suggesting a function call, and a check in there to make sure it is the superuser. Comments? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
