From: | Andrei Zubkov <zubkov(at)moonset(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2021-03-23 07:55:05 |
Message-ID: | 10d95404920b5f2ec48496a59e8ca4939a72c67a.camel@moonset.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Julien,
On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 15:03 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Note that you could also detect entries for which some counters
> decreased (e.g.
> the execution count), and in that case only use the current values.
Yes, but checking condition for several counters seems complicated
compared to check only one field.
> It should
> give the exact same results as what you will get with the first_seen
> column,
> except of course if some entry is almost never used and is suddenly
> used a lot
> after an explicit reset or an eviction and only until you perform
> your
> snapshot. I'm not sure that it's a very likely scenario though.
But it is possible, and we are guessing here. Storing a timestamp does
not seems too expensive to me, but it totally eliminates guessing, and
provides a clear view about the time interval we watching for this
specific statement.
> FTR that's how powa currently deals with reset/eviction.
PoWA sampling is much more frequent than pg_profile. For PoWA it is, of
cource, very unlikely scenario, but still possible.
--
Andrei Zubkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com | 2021-03-23 08:09:07 | RE: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements |
Previous Message | Andrey V. Lepikhov | 2021-03-23 07:54:57 | Re: Global snapshots |