| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Mitsumasa KONDO <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |
| Date: | 2014-01-29 09:16:54 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEyqazbhco5MZsCdL256qMC-KjXj6y4uVBniqBmYYV09RQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I am not opposed in principle to adding new things to the counters
> struct in pg_stat_statements. I just think that the fact that the
> overhead of installing the module on a busy production system is
> currently so low is of *major* value, and therefore any person that
> proposes to expand that struct should be required to very conclusively
> demonstrate that there is no appreciably increase in overhead. Having
> a standard deviation column would be nice, but it's still not that
> important. Maybe when we have portable atomic addition we can afford
> to be much more inclusive of that kind of thing.
>
Not (at this point) commenting on the details, but a big +1 on the fact
that the overhead is low is a *very* important property. If the overhead
starts growing it will be uninstalled - and that will make things even
harder to diagnose.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2014-01-29 09:25:30 | Re: Changeset Extraction v7.3 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-01-29 09:14:50 | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |