Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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