| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |
| Date: | 2012-03-28 23:52:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_VFs62WXwtQTejz125hhAPammeZpKJBbpN-wB46UOa_Bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29 March 2012 00:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm planning to commit the patch with a USAGE_NON_EXEC_STICK value
> of 3.0, which is the largest value that stays below 10% wastage.
> We can twiddle that logic later, so if you want to experiment with an
> alternate decay rule, feel free.
I think I may well end up doing so when I get a chance. This seems
like the kind of problem that will be solved only when we get some
practical experience (i.e. use the tool on something closer to a
production system than the regression tests).
doc-patch is attached. I'm not sure if I got the balance right - it
may be on the verbose side.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg_stat_statements_norm_docs.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2012-03-29 00:28:54 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-28 23:14:43 | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |