From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at |
Subject: | Re: stored procedure stats in collector |
Date: | 2008-05-14 06:18:06 |
Message-ID: | 482A841E.10703@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Huh ... I'd forgotten about that ... although it seems to work only for
>>> rather small values of "work", since the WIN32 code path isn't paying
>>> attention to the "who" argument.
>
>> True, but it works for this case :-)
>
> Shouldn't we at least make it fail with EINVAL if "who" doesn't match
> whichever semantics this code is able to implement?
>
> [ not relevant to the immediate patch, I suppose, but it might save some
> tears later. ]
Yeah, we only ever call it asking for our own process, but I guess we
might at some point in the future change that, so it can't hurt.. Want
me to do it, or will you?
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-14 06:20:14 | Re: stored procedure stats in collector |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-14 06:16:04 | Re: stored procedure stats in collector |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-14 06:20:14 | Re: stored procedure stats in collector |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-14 06:16:04 | Re: stored procedure stats in collector |