Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements

From: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Date: 2012-10-15 17:10:53
Message-ID: CAAZKuFY+RxSZR3KOxD58_LQMgs56MfXEU2Ar6WeEhQKNp04hWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>>> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
>>> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and,
>>> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be
>>> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between
>>> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a
>>> contiguously maintained statistic on a query.
>>
>> This argument seems sensible to me.
>
> Daniel: Could you please submit the patch that you were working on
> that does this to the next commitfest?

Yes. Sorry I haven't done that already. I'll clean it up and send it
out Real Soon Now, thanks for the expression of interest.

--
fdr

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-10-15 17:11:43 Re: Deprecating Hash Indexes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-10-15 17:07:03 Re: Deprecating Hash Indexes