From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation |
Date: | 2012-01-23 02:17:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobODkaTOjpySm1LvMjhASWk5KyAumdiBn2Eq7LPY_wfOA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, having received feedback from Tom and others in relation to this
>> patch, I would like to state how I think I should go about addressing
>> various concerns to ensure that a revision of the patch gets into the
>> 9.2 release. As I've said time and again, I think that it is very
>> important that we have this, sooner rather than later.
>
> Nothing can be ensured completely, but I would add this is a very
> important feature. Without it, large systems without prepared
> statements are mostly untunable and therefore untuned, which is a bad
> thing.
I, too, am pretty excited about the potential for this feature.
Having not read the patch I'm not able to comment on code quality or
design at this point, but I'm definitely +1 on the concept.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-23 02:20:44 | Re: PG-Strom - A GPU optimized asynchronous executor module |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-23 02:08:55 | Re: Publish checkpoint timing and sync files summary data to pg_stat_bgwriter |