Re: [PROPOSAL] timestamp informations to pg_stat_statements

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jun Cheol Gim <dialogbox(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] timestamp informations to pg_stat_statements
Date: 2016-07-17 23:20:48
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRSY9Fa3Ve1E=xFL-qsOQHH92xaV-zeFPV+j5k9kMXvkg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The concern I've got about this proposal is that the results get very
> questionable as soon as we start dropping statement entries for lack
> of space. last_executed would be okay, perhaps, but first_executed
> not so much.

Agreed.

Also, for what it's worth, I should point out to Jun that
GetCurrentTimestamp() should definitely not be called when a spinlock
is held like that.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2016-07-17 23:35:10 Re: DO with a large amount of statements get stuck with high memory consumption
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-07-17 23:18:58 Re: Obsolete comment within fmgr.c