| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | yasuo(dot)honda(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com, geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com, Sutou Kouhei <kou(at)clear-code(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
| Date: | 2024-08-11 19:34:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20240811193455.ctafhzgw25iiqgkb@erthalion.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 07:54:05PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>
> This feature will improve my monitoring. Even in patch 0001. I think there are many other people in the thread who think this is useful. So maybe we should move it forward? Any complaints about the overall design? I see in the discussion it was mentioned that it would be good to measure performance difference.
>
> PS: patch cannot be applied at this time, it needs another rebase.
Yeah, it seems like most people are fine with the first patch and the
simplest approach. I'm going to post a rebased version and a short
thread summary soon.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-08-11 19:44:14 | Re: Avoiding superfluous buffer locking during nbtree backwards scans |
| Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2024-08-11 16:54:05 | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |