Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 21:10:37 +0200
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling
Message-ID: <20190804191037.em6rmlvxjpcsjtqu@development>
References: 
 <CAFj8pRDS8tQ3Wviw9=AvODyUciPSrGeMhJi_WPE+EB8+4gLL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <156292912396.1365.3073279552263868317.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <156292957348.1365.8079060287740507529.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <CAFj8pRB=bHQ=H3wbX1Qs9ViM-JeywvFm_k-ey1cOmSbWe=O0ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190727221948.irg6sfqh57dynoc7@development>
 <4540bafe-1b23-a6ce-a313-f3b03bb418df@anayrat.info>
 <cfe72bab-dc4c-d194-4ea2-ac9dc89d6243@anayrat.info>
 <20190801100445.yo5v3pdxelijztzm@development>
 <3f6b75ea-03bb-7c35-1f20-e989f4b7f9ac@anayrat.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3f6b75ea-03bb-7c35-1f20-e989f4b7f9ac@anayrat.info>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1444-295967
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:53:40AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
>On 8/1/19 12:04 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> 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. :-(
>>
>
>Don't worry, I understand. It is better to add straigforward GUC in v13 than
>confusionning in v12 we will regret.
>

OK, I have the revert ready. The one thing I'm wondering about is
whether we need to revert log_transaction_sample_rate too? I think it's
pretty much independent feature, so I think we can keep that. Opinions?

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services