From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
Date: | 2012-04-10 17:51:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZhj_8A9o2FPhJxcfDnnOkb9JQn0qUdx11_k3yuW-soqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Well, FWIW I vote for making the new columns be float8 msec.
>
>> Ugh. So the three ways of doing timing that we have already aren't
>> enough, and we need a fourth one? Ack!
>
> Huh? I understood what you said upthread to be that we have two ways
> in existing releases (anything unreleased has zero standing in this
> discussion): float8 sec in pg_stat_statements.total_time, and
> int8 msec everywhere else. Did I miss something?
We also have int8 usec floating around. But even if we didn't, float8
msec would be a new one, regardless of whether it would be third or
fourth...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2012-04-10 17:54:41 | PgNext CFP is still open |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-10 17:44:55 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |