Re: auto_explain sample rate

From: Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: auto_explain sample rate
Date: 2016-02-16 21:24:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 25/08/2015 14:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 7 July 2015 at 21:37, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Well, I obviously missed that pg_srand48() is only used if the system
>>> lacks random/srandom, sorry for the noise. So yes, random() must be
>>> used instead of pg_lrand48().
>>> I'm attaching a new version of the patch fixing this issue just in case.
>> Thanks for picking this up. I've been trying to find time to come back
>> to it but been swamped in priority work.
> For now I am marking that as returned with feedback.

PFA v3 of the patch, rebased on current head. It fixes the last issue
(sample a percentage of queries).

I'm adding it to the next commitfest.

Julien Rouhaud -

Attachment Content-Type Size
auto_explain_sample_rate-v3.patch text/x-patch 3.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-02-16 21:51:38 Re: auto_explain sample rate
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-16 20:54:50 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl