|From:||Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:42:50PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:01 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> > So what I'd like to say is that the information that users are interested
> > in would vary on each situation and case. At least for me it seems
> > enough for pgss to report only the basic information. Then users
> > can calculate to get the numbers (like total_time) they're interested in,
> > from those basic information.
> > But of course, I'd like to hear more opinions about this...
> Unless someone chime in by tomorrow, I'll just drop the sum as it
> seems less controversial and not a blocker in userland if users are
Done in attached v11, with also the s/querytext/query_text/ discrepancy noted
> > >
> > > I also exported BufferUsageAccumDiff as mentioned previously, as it seems
> > > clearner and will avoid future useless code churn, and run pgindent.
> > Many thanks!! I'm thinking to commit this part separately.
> > So I made that patch based on your patch. Attached.
> Thanks! It looks good to me.
I also kept that part in a distinct commit for convenience.
|Next Message||Masahiko Sawada||2020-03-29 06:19:34||Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)|
|Previous Message||Amit Kapila||2020-03-29 06:05:44||Re: error context for vacuum to include block number|