| From: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements oddity with track = all |
| Date: | 2020-12-02 14:23:54 |
| Message-ID: | CANNMO++VRu2r17jqxBDFZF4++p+f4WE+VbvOPAQi_4BTwP4g=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:32 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 10:08:06PM -0800, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> > If all top-level records in pg_stat_statements have "true" in the new
> > column (is_toplevel), how would this lead to the need to increase
> > pg_stat_statements.max? The number of records would remain the same, as
> > before extending pg_stat_statements.
>
> If the same query is getting executed both at top level and as a nested
> statement, two entries will then be created. That's probably unlikely for
> things like RI trigger queries, but I don't know what to expect for client
> application queries.
>
Right, but this is how things already work. The extra field you've proposed
won't increase the number of records so it shouldn't affect how users
choose pg_stat_statements.max.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-12-02 14:28:28 | macOS SIP, next try |
| Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2020-12-02 14:13:56 | Re: pg_stat_statements oddity with track = all |