| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Zubkov <zubkov(at)moonset(dot)ru> | 
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <aamelnikov(at)inbox(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements | 
| Date: | 2022-04-04 08:08:34 | 
| Message-ID: | Ykqngj+ZGN35OMss@jrouhaud | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 09:59:04AM +0300, Andrei Zubkov wrote:
> > Minor rephrasing:
> >
> > s/evicted and returned back/evicted and stored again/?
> > s/with except of all/with the exception of all/
> > s/is now returns/now returns/
>
> Agreed, commit message updated.
>
> > - code:
> >
> > +#define SINGLE_ENTRY_RESET() \
> > +if (entry) { \
> > [...]
> >
> > It's not great to rely on caller context too much.
>
> Yes, I was thinking about it. But using 4 parameters seemed strange to
> me.
>
> >   I think it would be better
> > to pass at least the entry as a parameter (maybe e?) to the macro for
> > more
> > clarity.  I'm fine with keeping minmax_only, stats_reset and
> > num_remove as is.
>
> Using an entry as a macro parameter looks good, I'm fine with "e".
>
> > Apart from that I think this is ready!
>
> v13 attached
Thanks a lot!  I'm happy with this version, so I'm marking it as Ready for
Committer.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey V. Lepikhov | 2022-04-04 08:27:45 | Re: Removing unneeded self joins | 
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-04 07:20:00 | Re: unlogged sequences |