From: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New function pg_stat_statements_reset_query() to reset statistics of a specific query |
Date: | 2018-06-22 19:45:57 |
Message-ID: | CAHE3wgg3EFZMGAUYpP3Sfgn3irFx4QYjbj7MWKO+ov9deGFvvA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2018-06-22 12:06 GMT-03:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
>> 2018-06-20 4:30 GMT-03:00 Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> Attached is a simple patch with implementation. Comments?
>>>
>> Why don't you extend the existing function pg_stat_statements_reset()?
>
> Well, the existing function doesn't take any arguments. We could add
> an additional version of it that takes an argument, or we could
> replace the existing version with one that has an optional argument.
> But are either of those things any better than just adding a new
> function with a different name, like
> pg_stat_statements_reset_statement()?
>
From the user's POV, overloading is a good goal. It is better to
remember one function name than 3 different function names to do the
same task (reset statement statistics).
> I have not had such good experiences with function overloading, either
> in PostgreSQL or elsewhere, that I'm ready to say reusing the same
> name is definitely the right approach. For example, suppose we
> eventually end up with a function that resets all the statements, a
> function that resets just one statement, a function that resets all
> statements for one user, and a function that resets all statements
> where the statement text matches a certain regexp. If those all have
> separate names, everything is fine. If they all have the same name,
> there's no way that's not confusing.
>
I think part of your frustration with overloading is because there are
so many arguments and/or argument type combinations to remember.
Frankly, I never remember the order / type of arguments when a
function has more than 2 arguments (unless I use that function a lot).
If we want to consider overloading I think we should put all
possibilities for that function on the table and decide between
overload it or not. Bad overloading decisions tend to be very
frustrating for the user. In this case, all possibilities (queryid,
user, regex, database, statement regex) can be summarized as (i) 0
arguments that means all statements and (ii) 1 argument (queryid is
unique for all statements) -- because queryid can be obtain using
SELECT pg_stat_statements_reset(queryid) FROM pg_stat_statements WHERE
my-condition-here.
--
Euler Taveira Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-06-22 19:50:06 | Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-06-22 19:43:10 | Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion |