| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Franck Pachot <pg(dot)franck(at)pachot(dot)net>, Jeff Holt <jeff(dot)holt(at)method-r(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Better, consistent instrumentation for postgreSQL using a similar API as Oracle |
| Date: | 2021-10-11 06:54:36 |
| Message-ID: | 0eec105c66409053f3e10f6d216c91600708c040.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2021-10-11 at 00:09 +0200, Franck Pachot wrote:
> And people will dislike it because it mentions Oracle.
I don't think so.
While "Oracle has it" is not a good enough reason for a feature, it
is certainly no counter-indication.
> Or people will dislike it because they think this should be reserved to commercial forks.
That is conceivable, but I think most vendors would prefer to have
that in standard PostgreSQL rather than having to maintain it on
their own.
> Or because it may introduce too much dependency on the OS.
That is possible. But I think gettimeofday(2) is portable enough.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-10-11 19:04:41 | Re: Better, consistent instrumentation for postgreSQL using a similar API as Oracle |
| Previous Message | Franck Pachot | 2021-10-10 22:09:32 | Re: Better, consistent instrumentation for postgreSQL using a similar API as Oracle |