| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements vs. SELECT FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2019-01-19 15:12:52 |
| Message-ID: | 6baeefa1-18f2-2e85-3d4e-23ebf7402e10@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19/01/2019 15:43, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> pg_stat_statements considers a plain select and a select for update to
> be equivalent, which seems quite wrong to me as they will have very
> different performance characteristics due to locking.
>
> The only comment about it in the code is:
>
> /* we ignore rowMarks */
>
> I propose that it should not ignore rowMarks, per the attached patch or
> something similar.
>
> (thanks to Vik Fearing for preliminary testing)
I don't this needs any documentation changes, but some tests would be
nice. I will go add some. Does the extension need a version bump for this?
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-01-19 15:32:55 | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2019-01-19 14:50:20 | Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g |