| From: | Andrei Zubkov <zubkov(at)moonset(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <aamelnikov(at)inbox(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2022-04-04 06:59:04 |
| Message-ID: | 6feb911a9d9f6cf637766eb6c1befe41867799ff.camel@moonset.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Julien,
Thank you very much for your work on this patch!
On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 10:31 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> - the commit message:
>
> It should probably mention the mimnax_stats_since at the beginning.
> Also, both
> the view and the function contain those new field.
>
> Minor rephrasing:
>
> s/evicted and returned back/evicted and stored again/?
> s/with except of all/with the exception of all/
> s/is now returns/now returns/
Agreed, commit message updated.
> - code:
>
> +#define SINGLE_ENTRY_RESET() \
> +if (entry) { \
> [...]
>
> It's not great to rely on caller context too much.
Yes, I was thinking about it. But using 4 parameters seemed strange to
me.
> I think it would be better
> to pass at least the entry as a parameter (maybe e?) to the macro for
> more
> clarity. I'm fine with keeping minmax_only, stats_reset and
> num_remove as is.
Using an entry as a macro parameter looks good, I'm fine with "e".
> Apart from that I think this is ready!
v13 attached
--
regards, Andrei
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v13-0001-pg_stat_statements-Track-statement-entry-timestamp.patch | text/x-patch | 63.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-04 07:20:00 | Re: unlogged sequences |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2022-04-04 06:26:20 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |