Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)fdr(dot)io>
Cc: Sameer Thakur <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
Date: 2013-10-02 00:23:01
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSDAofz17xy4=_m3Fbz=kFYGKjqbhASK9HxCKO=kbuSJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)fdr(dot)io> wrote:
> I remember hacking that out for testing sake.
>
> I can only justify it as a foot-gun to prevent someone from being
> stuck restarting the database to get a reasonable number in there.
> Let's CC Peter; maybe he can remember some thoughts about that.

On reflection I think it was entirely to do with the testing of the
patch. I don't think that the minimum value of pg_stat_statements has
any real significance.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-10-02 00:30:07 Re: Completing PL support for Event Triggers
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-01 23:52:18 Re: insert throw error when year field len > 4 for timestamptz datatype