Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Date: 2019-03-27 10:37:07
Message-ID: CAOBaU_aX2Ad_pcSWGUQ1YFk8gotwoMYJDg5Wmosh7jj+28AQ4w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:21 AM legrand legrand
<legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> here is a new version:
>
> - "track_planning" GUC added
> to permit to keep previous behavior unchanged

good

> - trailing whitespaces and comments wider than 80 characters
> not fixed

why? In case it's not clear, I'm talking about the .c file, not the
regression tests.

> - "Assert(planning_time > 0 && total_time > 0);"
> moved at the beginning of pgss_store

Have you tried to actually compile postgres and pg_stat_statements
with --enable-cassert? This test can *never* be true, since you
either provide the planning time or the execution time or neither. As
I said in my previous mail, adding a parameter to say which counter
you're updating, instead of adding another counter that's mutually
exclusive with the other would make everything clearer.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Banck 2019-03-27 10:37:25 Re: [Patch] Base backups and random or zero pageheaders
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2019-03-27 09:51:42 Re: amcheck verification for GiST