Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1epIhD-00039P-KH for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:07:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1epIhC-0007H4-NX for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:07:50 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1epIhC-0007Gv-Hm for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:07:50 +0000 Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.20.226]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1epIh7-0000vw-DA for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:07:50 +0000 Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC53140477 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:07:37 -0700 (MST) Received: from box390.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.190]) by cmgw4 with id EK7Z1x00a467Erp01K7c1G; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:07:37 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=t6//4EQnHSbopLQ0OUmvgQ==:117 a=t6//4EQnHSbopLQ0OUmvgQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Op4juWPpsa0A:10 a=Xm1s_25vAAAA:8 a=Ye9q-bpsAAAA:8 a=M1tyjYlk8o2DPpu1ZaQA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=xRmn80MPjO1ig5D_HXyC:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codingthat.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=gfdlhfLe+NMK9+qXcdY65/80x2H4qZ86Nt1EbeMg4/k=; b=Gzx+0YcsFdx5OiY5VuiqYyVu0k 3QUnAfW+0yS4GhM0q2z2GTja0U9Ft/6pAF5f66Y2vF8jrmhSp90noheKlEMgmhn0TPEWPtZOjLQ9r 6RU0Ni0JwnNPELPQ2qtb303liG0zR9FYZCwlzWlrHK19RyZjxO8RIdcfaf72gngmU6NvrfOW2D5we ewoYQcqBMLhP6CsPKvqxKT1erdiPCpjir+kZ+3qJsL/T0IeNYzjZ8/Pi+b7Y8cQdqJbRhFhCR+QO+ VL3Fnbp8l0jBOfAxCEVwGqil75JCMhvsGNc6GhNEx2CQBHtMEKMSf3cEyBJUOqEK6BtjhPiaOnl/p /a7Y3kOg==; Received: from adsl-178-38-82-94.adslplus.ch ([178.38.82.94]:36408 helo=[192.168.178.87]) by box390.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from ) id 1epIgu-000oEp-TI; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:07:33 -0700 Subject: Re: maximum for auto_explain.log_min_duration doesn't seem to make sense To: "David G. Johnston" Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org References: <8ea82d7e-cb78-8e05-0629-73aa14d2a0ca@codingthat.com> From: Kevin Bloch Message-ID: <25d0362a-5172-ccaa-45dd-88999364d18c@codingthat.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:07:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box390.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.postgresql.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - codingthat.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 178.38.82.94 X-Exim-ID: 1epIgu-000oEp-TI X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: adsl-178-38-82-94.adslplus.ch ([192.168.178.87]) [178.38.82.94]:36408 X-Source-Auth: kev@codingthat.com X-Email-Count: 2 X-Source-Cap: Y29kaW5ndGg7Y29kaW5ndGg7Ym94MzkwLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ== X-Local-Domain: yes List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 02/23/2018 08:02 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Kevin Bloch >wrote: > > According to https://dba.stackexchange.com/a/198429/28774 > , this setting maxes > out at INT_MAX / 1000, but since it's never multiplied by 1000 or > any other number, it seems it should perhaps just be INT_MAX > > > ​I suspect that the counter to which that value is being compared also > wants to be an INT and if one checks for "val > INT_MAX" then val cannot > be restricted to an integer (and since we are capturing time we need > some unknown buffer). The unknown buffer is key here, it seems. Thanks for clarifying. > As for the post question: What can I do if I want to log even > longer-running queries on a data warehouse? > > The answer is "nothing special, anything running longer than the > supplied value will be logged".  What you cannot do is choose not to log > a subset of queries that take longer INT_MAX/1,000 and less then > infinity - once you hit INT_MAX/1,000 you must log it. I had phrased that poorly, but you answered my actual meaning in the end: A higher minimum isn't possible. Thanks again, Kev > > David J. >