From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2025-03-10 17:46:58 |
Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0vqVPD0-h+MukmNBkfP11oV_2=T+pKidyeUQbBWRTMbmA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't quite understand why do we need to differentiate between
> PLAN_CACHE_STATUS_GENERIC_PLAN_BUILD and
> PLAN_CACHE_STATUS_GENERIC_PLAN_REUSE?
> We could simply keep PLAN_CACHE_STATUS_GENERIC_PLAN_REUSE.
> I don't think users would see much of a difference in either pg_stat_statements or EXPLAIN.
If we removed GENERIC_PLAN_BUILD, I suppose we can simply rely on
CPlan != NULL && cplan->status != PLAN_CACHE_STATUS_CUSTOM_PLAN
to determine that we have a generic plan. However, I rather keep the status(s)
defined this way for clarity.
> As for EXPLAIN, maybe we should include this in VERBOSE mode?
This could be a fast follow-up patch as there appears to be support
for this idea.
--
Sami
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-03-10 17:58:44 | Re: bogus error message for ALTER TABLE ALTER CONSTRAINT |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-03-10 17:35:56 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |