On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:42:17PM +0300, Ilia Evdokimov wrote:
> I´ve addressed all your comments on the v9 patch for updating the
> descriptions of auto_explain.log_min_duration and
> auto_explain.log_parameter_max_length. Just wanted to check if you had a
> chance to take another look. Let me kn
On 18.02.2025 01:13, Ilia Evdokimov wrote:
Thank you for reviewing! I agree with all of them. I updated patch v9
with these changes.
--
Best regards,
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC.
Hi hackers,
I’ve addressed all your comments on the v9 patch for updating the
descriptions of auto_expl
On 18.02.2025 00:55, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:14:58AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
SUGGESTION
"-1 disables logging plans. 0 means log all plans."
+1
DefineCustomIntVariable("auto_explain.log_parameter_max_length",
"Sets the maximum length of query parameters to log
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:14:58AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> SUGGESTION
> "-1 disables logging plans. 0 means log all plans."
+1
> DefineCustomIntVariable("auto_explain.log_parameter_max_length",
> "Sets the maximum length of query parameters to log.",
> - "Zero logs no query parameters, -1
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:50 PM Ilia Evdokimov
wrote:
>
>
> On 14.02.2025 19:47, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:01:59PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> Okay, I took your suggestions in v7.
> > Committed. Thanks, David, Peter, and Daniel!
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Maybe I'm being pic
On 14.02.2025 19:47, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:01:59PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Okay, I took your suggestions in v7.
Committed. Thanks, David, Peter, and Daniel!
Hi,
Maybe I'm being picky, but in auto_explain, the parameters
log_min_duration and log_parameter_m
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:01:59PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Okay, I took your suggestions in v7.
Committed. Thanks, David, Peter, and Daniel!
--
nathan
7.
--
nathan
>From 7526dcc25c992be8e2bc6aed2a030dcdd1d536e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:26:00 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v7 1/1] Describe special values in GUC descriptions more
consistently.
Many GUCs accept special values like -1 or an empty string to
di
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:18 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:10:53PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > I presume it doesn't affect the actual output which just concatenates the
> > fragments together but the source placement probably should be made
> > consistent; the line
4:26:00 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v6 1/1] Describe special values in GUC descriptions more
consistently.
Many GUCs accept special values like -1 or an empty string to
disable the feature, use a system default, etc. While the
documentation consistently lists these special values, the GUC
descriptions
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:47 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> Good catch. I've fixed that in v5.
>
>
I presume it doesn't affect the actual output which just concatenates the
fragments together but the source placement probably should be made
consistent; the line containing the initial default value s
cuum actions. 0 means log
> all autovacuum actions."),
Good catch. I've fixed that in v5.
--
nathan
>From f5e757046c40bfa118c10cae82edc55dc7679dca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:26:00 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/1] Describe special valu
One last thing...
- gettext_noop("Zero logs all files. The default is -1 (turning this
feature off)."),
+ gettext_noop("-1 disables temporary file logs. 0 means log all
temporary files."),
The first sentence could be ambiguous. E.g. "temporary file logs"
might be interpreted as meaning logs about
> On 12 Feb 2025, at 22:04, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> Here is what I have staged for commit, which I intend to do within the next
> couple of days unless there is additional feedback. In v4, I've added a
> commit message, removed the changes to the ssl_crl_* parameters, and fixed
> a couple of v
>From 3205f1172ac6ec2a82171bba554bca17bb8702cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:26:00 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/1] Describe special values in GUC descriptions more
consistently.
Many GUCs accept special values like -1 or an empty string to
disable the feature, use a system defa
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:41:51PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2025, at 19:11, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
>> I thought about this one a bit, and I actually came to the opposite
>> conclusion. IMHO it's reasonably obvious that an empty string means that
>> the file isn't loaded, so
> On 11 Feb 2025, at 19:11, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I thought about this one a bit, and I actually came to the opposite
> conclusion. IMHO it's reasonably obvious that an empty string means that
> the file isn't loaded, so there's not much point in stating it in the GUC
> description. Instead,
I don't have an opinion about the ssl_crl stuff. Everything else looks
good to me.
==
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
c of
> these two choices seems awkward.
I thought about this one a bit, and I actually came to the opposite
conclusion. IMHO it's reasonably obvious that an empty string means that
the file isn't loaded, so there's not much point in stating it in the GUC
descr
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 4:53 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:25 AM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:29:28AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > > +1 for this. Your wording examples below look good to me..
> >
> > Okay, how does this look?
> >
> > --
>
> v2 m
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:25 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:29:28AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > +1 for this. Your wording examples below look good to me..
>
> Okay, how does this look?
>
> --
v2 mostly looked good to me. Just a couple of questions.
~~~
1.
{"shared_m
-0600
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/1] Describe special values in GUC descriptions more
consistently.
---
src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c | 139 ++--
1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c
b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_ta
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 3:22 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 9:02 AM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:13:26AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
>> > +1 for improving consistency.
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing.
>>
>> > 1. IMO all places wording as "XXX means t
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 9:02 AM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:13:26AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > +1 for improving consistency.
>
> Thanks for reviewing.
>
> > 1. IMO all places wording as "XXX means to YYY" should be just "XXX
> > means YYY" (e.g. remove the "to")
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:13:26AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> +1 for improving consistency.
Thanks for reviewing.
> 1. IMO all places wording as "XXX means to YYY" should be just "XXX
> means YYY" (e.g. remove the "to")
>
> e.g. "-1 means to wait forever." => "-1 means wait forever."
> e.g. ""-
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:27 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> For many GUCs, special values like -1, "", etc. have some sort of special
> meaning, such as disabling the feature. While the documentation seems to
> be reasonably good about listing special values, the GUC descriptions are
> less consiste
n Bossart
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:06:18 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/1] Describe special values in GUC descriptions more
consistently.
---
src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c | 139 ++--
1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/
27 matches
Mail list logo
