From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2012-10-15 17:10:53 |
Message-ID: | CAAZKuFY+RxSZR3KOxD58_LQMgs56MfXEU2Ar6WeEhQKNp04hWQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>>> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
>>> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and,
>>> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be
>>> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between
>>> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a
>>> contiguously maintained statistic on a query.
>>
>> This argument seems sensible to me.
>
> Daniel: Could you please submit the patch that you were working on
> that does this to the next commitfest?
Yes. Sorry I haven't done that already. I'll clean it up and send it
out Real Soon Now, thanks for the expression of interest.
--
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-15 17:11:43 | Re: Deprecating Hash Indexes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-15 17:07:03 | Re: Deprecating Hash Indexes |