| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai>, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2025-07-30 19:05:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0sgLNBKUdceqvoxNCbn9rirJhH6bUjAmSZB6557cbcG4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The term "NOT_SET" makes me itch a little bit, even if there is an
> > existing parallel with OverridingKind. Perhaps your proposal is OK,
> > still how about "UNKNOWN" instead to use as term for the default?
> +1 to "UNKNOWN".
We currently use both UNKNOWN and NOT_SET in different places.
However, I'm okay with using UNKNOWN, and I've updated it in v16.
> But generally, classification in the PlannedStmtOrigin structure seems a
> little strange: a generic plan has a qualitative difference from any
> custom one. And any other plan also will be generic or custom, doesn't
> it?
I am not sure I understand the reasoning here. Can you provide more details/
specific examples?
--
Sami
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v16-0001-Introduce-planOrigin-field-in-PlannedStmt-to-rep.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.8 KB |
| v16-0002-pg_stat_statements-Add-counters-for-generic-and-.patch | application/octet-stream | 26.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2025-07-30 19:14:58 | Re: CAST(... ON DEFAULT) - WIP build on top of Error-Safe User Functions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-07-30 18:56:20 | Re: Improve prep_buildtree |