| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2021-07-25 16:59:35 |
| Message-ID: | 81235.1627232375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:03:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So AFAICS this test is inherently unstable and there is no code bug
>> to be fixed. We could drop the "plans" column from this query, or
>> print something approximate like "plans > 0 AND plans <= calls".
>> Thoughts?
> I think we should go with the latter. Checking for a legit value, even if it's
> a bit imprecise is still better than nothing.
> 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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-07-25 17:08:08 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-07-25 16:36:37 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |