| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 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: | 2021-07-25 22:25:42 |
| Message-ID: | 84f3a8f0-2041-d4a4-4f46-ec1f99b90fb1@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/25/21 12:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So AFAICS this test is inherently unstable and there is no code bug
> to be fixed. We could drop the "plans" column from this query, or
> print something approximate like "plans > 0 AND plans <= calls".
> Thoughts?
>
Is that likely to tell us anything very useful? I suppose it's really
just a check against insane values. Since the test is unstable it's hard
to do more than that.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-25 22:46:53 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-07-25 19:57:07 | Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes |