From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sameer Thakur <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
Date: | 2013-10-10 20:54:50 |
Message-ID: | CAAZKuFatZCguMx2SSkzyzUrcSaGVvtBHWG1zwD=1jhE3Car9Cw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Just noticed that you changed the timer to struct Instrumentation. Not
>> > really sure about that change. Since you seem to be using only the
>> > start time and counter, wouldn't it be better to store only those?
>> > Particularly unsure about passing INSTRUMENT_ALL to InstrAlloc().
>>
>> Yeah, I was unsure about that too.
>>
>> The motivation was that I need one more piece of information in
>> pgss_store (the absolute start time). I was going to widen the
>> argument list, but it was looking pretty long, so instead I was
>> thinking it'd be more concise to push the entire, typically extant
>> Instrumentation struct pointer down.
>
> Would it work to define your own struct to pass around?
Absolutely, I was just hoping to spare the code another abstraction if
another was a precise superset.
Looks like that isn't going to happen, though, so a pgss-oriented
struct is likely what will have to be.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-10 21:14:01 | Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-10 20:51:10 | Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions |