Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)

From: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>
To: 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)
Date: 2019-02-12 13:51:57
Message-ID: 6112091549979517@myt5-a323eb993ef7.qloud-c.yandex.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

Thank you for picking this up! Did you register patch in CF app? I did not found entry.

Currently we have pg_stat_statements 1.7 version and this patch does not apply... My fast and small view:

> - errmsg("could not read file \"%s\": %m",
> + errmsg("could not read pg_stat_statement file \"%s\": %m",

Not sure this is need for this patch. Usually refactoring and new features are different topics.

> +#define PG_STAT_STATEMENTS_COLS_V1_4 25

should not be actual version? I think version in names is relevant to extension version.

And this patch does not have documentation changes.

> "I agree with the sentiment on the old thread that
> {total,min,max,mean,stddev}_time now seem badly named, but adding
> execution makes them so long...  Thoughts?"
>
> What would you think about:
> - userid
> - dbid
> - queryid
> - query
> - plans
> - plan_time
> - {min,max,mean,stddev}_plan_time
> - calls
> - exec_time
> - {min,max,mean,stddev}_exec_time
> - total_time (being the sum of plan_time and exec_time)
> - rows
> - ...

We have some consensus about backward incompatible changes in this function? *plan_time + *exec_time naming is ok for me

regards, Sergei

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-12 13:53:43 Re: Too rigorous assert in reorderbuffer.c
Previous Message Oleksii Kliukin 2019-02-12 12:52:09 Re: Connection slots reserved for replication