Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)
Date: 2020-04-07 08:42:01
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KRQnZnCwONuVpc6o=GjXU_vRcUfL-MEOWBKA-jzT7fvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
>

Agreed, but can you check which part of code does that lookup? I want
to see if we can avoid that from buffer usage stats or at least write
a comment about it, otherwise, we might have to face this question
again and again.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 曾文旌 2020-04-07 08:51:01 Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-04-07 08:17:32 Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.