| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Date: | 2023-01-21 03:27:07 |
| Message-ID: | 827128.1674271627@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Perhaps an INSTR_TIME_ZERO() that could be assigned in variable definitions
>> could give us the best of both worlds?
> I tried that in the attached 0005. I found that it reads better if I also add
> INSTR_TIME_CURRENT(). If we decide to go for this, I'd roll it into 0001
> instead, but I wanted to get agreement on it first.
-1 from here. This forecloses the possibility that it's best to use more
than one assignment to initialize the value, and the code doesn't read
any better than it did before.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-21 03:35:52 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-21 03:00:08 | Re: postgres_fdw uninterruptible during connection establishment / ProcSignalBarrier |