Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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