From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai> |
Subject: | Re: track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2025-07-22 12:04:31 |
Message-ID: | 03f82e6f-66a3-4c4d-935c-ea4d93871dc1@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22/7/2025 01:22, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> Note: the size of the change in pg_stat_statements--1.12--1.13.sql
>> points that we should seriously consider splitting these attributes
>> into multiple sub-functions.
>
> So we don't lose track of this. This should be a follow-up thread. I do
> agree something has to be done about the exploding list of attributes
> in pg_s_s.
+1
Not once I encountered people who want to track only a specific number
of parameters and do not have much fun burdening themselves with all the
data set, querying a whole huge stat view to analyse performance profiles.
In another scenario, an extension needs to track a limited number of
parameters - let's say, blocks hit and blocks read. Another dimension -
sometimes we are only interested in queries that involve complex join
trees or partitioned tables and would be happy to avoid tracking all
other queries.
It seems that a callback-based or subscription-based model could be
worth exploring.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-07-22 12:21:10 | Re: Log prefix missing for subscriber log messages received from publisher |
Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2025-07-22 11:58:32 | Re: 024_add_drop_pub.pl might fail due to deadlock |