Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: stored procedure stats in collector

From: Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at
Subject: Re: stored procedure stats in collector
Date: 2008-03-25 12:16:38
Message-ID: 47E8ED26.8060003@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Howdy,

> Moreover, if it'd be possible to specify which specific functions we
> want to try, then that would be awesome as well.
> 
> For instance, possible configuration combinations for track_functions
> can be:
> 
>   `pl:*'                - Tracks procedural, SQL and C (not internal)

It is probably more efficient to track all functions and then use filters
on the stats view. That way the filters can be arbitrarily complex and
are out of the way of critical code path.

Selective filtering could also be implemented using per-function guc
variables. For example, set "track_functions = none" system wide and
then for specific functions:

alter function foo() set track_functions = "all";

Now I just realized that the current patch doesn't handle this quite
correctly. Modified patch attached.

Hans, this should be equivalent to the TRACK / NOTRACK you proposed? If so,
then we can do without the grammar change and just use the per-function guc.

Regards,
Martin

Attachment: track_functions.patch
Description: text/x-diff (54.7 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SDDate: 2008-03-25 12:46:51
Subject: Re: [GSoC] (Is it OK to choose items without % mark in theToDoList) && (is it an acceptable idea to build index on Flash Disk)
Previous:From: Russell SmithDate: 2008-03-25 10:57:07
Subject: Re: TODO Item: Consider allowing control of upper/lower case folding of unquoted, identifiers

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-03-25 12:55:27
Subject: Re: actualised execute using patch
Previous:From: Zoltan BoszormenyiDate: 2008-03-25 09:53:35
Subject: Re: Re: int8/float8/time/timestamp[tz]/float4 passed by value, was Re: Fix HAVE_LONG[_LONG]_INT_64 to really define to 1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group