Re: Add parallel columns for pg_stat_statements

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add parallel columns for pg_stat_statements
Date: 2024-11-07 13:33:07
Message-ID: CAECtzeUq=hu2C1o=iXWUoF5HZ8affV5UcBsZJXZ=Kqu0LuqBYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Le jeu. 7 nov. 2024 à 04:19, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> a écrit :

> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 08:32:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Okay, applied 0001 and 0002 then after a second lookup. I'll spend
> > some more time thinking about 0003 and the other threads.
>
> Considered 0003, and I'm still not sure that this is something that
> is really required based on the correlation that are now possible with
> the number of times a query has been called and the number of
> planned/launched workers.
>
>
I'm fine with your decision. After using the new metrics, we'll probably
see more clearly if that's enough.

> So I am marking the entry as committed. Let's see about the threads
> for the addition of this data at table-level and at the
> database-level.
>

Sounds good!

Table level is probably not the most important in my view. Database-level
and logging are what really matters to me.

Thanks.

--
Guillaume.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2024-11-07 13:40:26 Re: Adding NetBSD and OpenBSD to Postgres CI
Previous Message Vitaly Davydov 2024-11-07 13:30:39 Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly