Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ht7x7-0000SE-EU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:04:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ht7x6-00087u-B5 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:04:52 +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_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ht7x5-00083R-Rw for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:04:52 +0000 Received: from mail-wr1-x442.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::442]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ht7x2-0007aj-Rs for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:04:51 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-x442.google.com with SMTP id n4so72992640wrs.3 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 03:04:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=7SZ6l4TLgDH4/4irLbSyk8WIKJILftsjZG7cKpaMmA0=; b=rcJhvDNHD5Z9kE2k7vTUHQsXyzDnF7pa0Wb9ipwiOjYGfUNjOw5CshJTePr6gwIBZj i6tOZ/yraOFYLnYJAxCz7A4kXMekRDmuW9WEvq6gMS2Q7MdJEfuwOGLEz3Db2FIBHUPV CJXYnN3iHSkvfih9VIFtJWgXAhrT9I7+psX9PJVf3XaBwVfsMqxB+w4JSFm6fV14bwLG hQRGUpoNA4vOVRniXIHPE9T+09TlMidcP9RntQDuDXp3c3qtqZYiM9FO/kAktQHqdAFk xGHxajMMSAhuj27f/4/monJRc4uJ2MldS4DdTKorvl1Q4iiEZMaedEivGtrFykSfm21F rYgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=7SZ6l4TLgDH4/4irLbSyk8WIKJILftsjZG7cKpaMmA0=; b=FjlWpAh+JUCAePqW4flP6+RnfWQFR3PKzIqvLL0fYmgnBtklf9Jktn7NkUaawjKt5P Ghf54CJ94xMSxEXBHFMaEsoBCzQf0ROQQDcVgt6kI8UgpZKPyMc0HV0XXHcBowVZTDfu 9pWQ+41E19lqeGS0E0dFHFogFYh30IZKTYDUZx37r7K2klGm4qUMKmIYLJ6gYILOJeUh bmWipaGU/+sI2O5ZYoTJAmMuFpFne1tNm1JAnSwmGqlsDKx+ymcNMRaBhq9TUJJBcfcu yOIo5xMofA+t7qz0HhIQhrPb6Sx31k0YpidarcW81pbMboQv8fYmXkLMv0SszML8q5TR r41A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhnfctJ41Yp7IQC6AeWEg+lP5xofVPqUzTzx1tizDqOisJ/KS/ FTD1KlmFrj7qepwL6E9bnJ+zJYvPiJo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxut6/o2rST/E6Qmg1pmZ6PDjwxrqs6nPVAUTXb3hNRzenwChprWOGAd5FEhq5QpunU6dYxKg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f601:: with SMTP id t1mr43540601wrp.337.1564653887591; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 03:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (static-84-42-175-93.net.upcbroadband.cz. [84.42.175.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r12sm87661952wrt.95.2019.08.01.03.04.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 01 Aug 2019 03:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 12:04:45 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra To: Adrien Nayrat Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling Message-ID: <20190801100445.yo5v3pdxelijztzm@development> References: <156292912396.1365.3073279552263868317.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> <156292957348.1365.8079060287740507529.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> <20190727221948.irg6sfqh57dynoc7@development> <4540bafe-1b23-a6ce-a313-f3b03bb418df@anayrat.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1444-295967-dirty List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote: >Hi, > >As we are at the end of this CF and there is still discussions about whether we >should revert log_statement_sample_limit and log_statement_sample_rate, or try >to fix it in v12. >I moved this patch to next commit fest and change status from "ready for >commiter" to "need review". I hope I didn't make a mistake. > Thanks. The RFC status was clearly stale, so thanks for updating. I should have done that after my review. I think the patch would be moved to the next CF at the end, but I might be wrong. In any case, I don't think you've done any mistake. As for the sampling patch - I think we'll end up reverting the feature for v12 - it's far too late to rework it at this point. Sorry about that, I know it's not a warm feeling when you get something done, and then it gets reverted on the last minute. :-( regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services