Re: pg_stat_statements and planning time

Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8 March 2012 13:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Then again, considering that gettimeofday is kinda
>> expensive, I suppose that would have to be optional if we were to have
>> it at all.

> +1. I'm not opposed to having such a mechanism, but it really ought to
> impose exactly no overhead on the common case where we don't
> particularly care about plan time.

I thought the proposal was to add it to (1) pg_stat_statement and (2)
EXPLAIN, both of which are not in the normal code execution path.
pg_stat_statement is already a drag on a machine with slow gettimeofday,
but it's not clear why users of it would think that two gettimeofday's
per query are acceptable and four are not.

regards, tom lane