Re: [PATCHES] Additional current timestamp values

2006-03-30 Thread Tom Lane
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "statement" isn't a great name for the units >>> that we are actually processing. We're really wanting to do these >>> things once per client command, or maybe per client query would be >>> a better name. >> >> Right. > What about "query string"?

Re: [PATCHES] Additional current timestamp values

2006-03-30 Thread Kevin Grittner
>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 7:58 pm, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> But not once per statement --- in reality, you get a fairly arbitrary >> behavior that will advance in some cases and not others when dealing >> with a multi- statement querystring. >

Re: [PATCHES] Patch proposal for log_duration

2006-03-30 Thread Tom Lane
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As explained in the previous thread, we used to play with log_duration > and log_min_error_statement to have the following behaviour: > - log every duration so that we can have a global overview of the > database activity; > - log statement only for sl

[PATCHES] Patch proposal for log_duration

2006-03-30 Thread Guillaume Smet
Hi, This patch is a followup of a discussion on -hackers about the new behaviour of log_duration in 8.x ( http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-03/msg00687.php ). As explained in the previous thread, we used to play with log_duration and log_min_error_statement to have the following b