| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
| Date: | 2021-07-25 17:08:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_aJUdetJ=MfdA1+fx_L4FD__o35sqN-zVBLswGkrwLHfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le lun. 26 juil. 2021 à 00:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> a écrit :
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:03:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Would it be worth to split the query for the prepared statement row vs
> the rest
> > to keep the full "plans" coverage when possible?
>
> +1, the same thought occurred to me later. Also, if we're making
> it specific to the one PREPARE example, we could get away with
> checking "plans >= 2 AND plans <= calls", with a comment like
> "we expect at least one replan event, but there could be more".
> Do you want to prepare a patch?
>
Sure, I will work on that tomorrow!
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-07-25 17:19:26 | Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-25 16:59:35 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |