| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
| Date: | 2021-07-26 01:36:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20210726013621.eznebns4boxoot4i@nol |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 01:08:08AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Le lun. 26 juil. 2021 à 00:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> a écrit :
>
> > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:03:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
>
> > > Would it be worth to split the query for the prepared statement row vs
> > the rest
> > > to keep the full "plans" coverage when possible?
> >
> > +1, the same thought occurred to me later. Also, if we're making
> > it specific to the one PREPARE example, we could get away with
> > checking "plans >= 2 AND plans <= calls", with a comment like
> > "we expect at least one replan event, but there could be more".
>
>
> > Do you want to prepare a patch?
> >
>
> Sure, I will work on that tomorrow!
I attach a patch that splits the test and add a comment explaining the
boundaries for the new query.
Checked with and without forced invalidations.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Make-pg_stat_statements-tests-immune-to-prepared-.patch | text/x-diff | 4.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-07-26 02:03:59 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2021-07-26 01:20:23 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |