From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
Date: | 2012-03-28 00:41:11 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPCKGTrY5p7Hgp-z8GvgxDNAzRk7oNevsXEBu-N6atp+g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I've committed the core of this. I left out the stats collector
> stuff, because it's still per-table and I think perhaps we should back
> off to just per-database. I changed it so that it does not conflate
> wait time with I/O time. Maybe there should be a separate method of
> measuring wait time, but I don't think it's a good idea for the
> per-backend stats to measure a different thing than what gets reported
> up to the stats collector - we should have ONE definition of each
> counter. I also tweaked the EXPLAIN output format a bit, and the
> docs.
Maybe I missed some earlier discussoin -- I've been having trouble
keeping up with the lists.
But was there discussion of why this is a GUC? Why not just another
parameter to EXPLAIN like the others?
i.e. EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS, IOTIMING)
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-28 00:51:31 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-28 00:30:12 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |