On Aug12, 2010, at 19:48 , Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Florian Pflug wrote: >>> Attached is an updated version (v4). > >> I've attached a v5. No real code changes from Florian's version, just >> some wording/style fixes and rework on the documentation. > > I'm looking through this patch now. It looks mostly good, but I am > wondering just exactly what is the rationale for adding comment > statements to the data structures, rather than ignoring them as before. > It seems like a complete waste of logic, memory space, and cycles; > moreover it renders the documentation's statement that comments > "are ignored" incorrect. I did not find anything in the patch history > explaining the point of that change.
To be able to include the comments (with an average latency of zero) in the latency report. This makes the latency report as self-explanatory as the original script was (Think latency report copy-and-pasted into an e-mail or wiki). It also has the benefit of making the line numbers of the latency report agree to those of the original script, which seemed like a natural thing to do, and might make some sorts of post-processing easier. It does make doCustom() a bit more complex, though. Anyway, I guess the chance of adding this back is slim now that the patch is committed. Oh well. Thanks for committing this, and best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
