Re: stored procedure stats in collector

From: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttmail(dot)com>
Cc: Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: stored procedure stats in collector
Date: 2008-03-24 08:35:33
Message-ID: 84E2E70E-4B94-4FB3-ABCA-C177BE993451@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Mar 23, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Volkan YAZICI wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Attached is a patch that enables tracking function calls through
>> the stats subsystem. Original discussion:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00377.php
>>
>> Introduces new guc variable - track_functions. Possible values are:
>> none - no collection, default
>> pl - tracks procedural language functions
>> all - tracks procedural, SQL and C (not internal) functions
>
> I might have missed the discussion, but I'd love to see a more
> flexible
> interface for configuration parameters. For instance, it'd be great if
> we can specify which procedural languages to track in the `pl' GUC.
> 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)
> functions in the `public' schema.
> `pl:pgsql' - Tracks only PL/pgSQL functions.
> `pl:scheme' - Tracks only PL/scheme functions.
> `foo(int, int)' - Tracks related `foo' function in the public
> schema.
> `stock.foo(int, int)' - Tracks related `foo' function in the `stock'
> schema.
> `pl:stock.*' - Tracks procedural, SQL and C (not internal)
> functions in the `stock' schema.
>
> Syntax can obviously be much more consistent. (These are just what I
> come up with for the very moment.) And I'm aware of the overhead and
> complexity(?) this sort of scheme will bring, but I really want to use
> such a useful feature with mentioned flexibilities.
>
>

this patch is quite cool already.
it would be even cooler if we could define on a per-function basis.
eg. CREATE FUNCTION ... TRACK | NOTRACK
in addition to that we could define a GUC defining whether TRACK or
NOTRACK is used as default.
in many cases you are only interested in a special set of functions
anyway.
as every operator is basically a procedure in postgres, i am not
quite happy about the per-language approach.

best regards,

hans

--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Support
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, 2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql-support.de, www.postgresql-support.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2008-03-24 09:21:54 Re: Project idea for Google Summer of Code
Previous Message Дмитрий Кириллов 2008-03-24 06:42:58 Project idea for Google Summer of Code

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brendan Jurd 2008-03-24 10:37:36 Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL
Previous Message Volkan YAZICI 2008-03-23 20:25:45 Re: stored procedure stats in collector