Manfred Koizar wrote: > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:40:03 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Item 3 is the most controversial. Some say sum all tuple counts, i.e. > >sum INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. That just seems to messy to me. I think > >summing only the matching tags has the highest probability of returning > >a meaningful number. > > [Trying to keep it short this time] > > I still believe that there is more than one correct answer; it just > depends on what the dba intends. So I proposed a syntax change for > letting the dba explicitly mark the statements she/he wants to affect > tuple count and oid. > > -> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-09/msg00720.php > > Unfortunately I tried to summarize all other proposals and the mail > got so long that nobody read it to the end :-(
That is an interesting idea; some syntax in the rule that marks the items. The one downside to that is the fact the rule writer has to make adjustments. Perhaps we could implement the behavoir I described and add such tagging later. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(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
