| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Generate pg_stat_get_* functions with Macros |
| Date: | 2022-12-06 02:45:10 |
| Message-ID: | Y46stlxQ2LQE20Na@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:16:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Doing that in a separate patch is fine by me.
I have applied the patch for the tab entries, then could not resist
poking at the parts for the db entries. This leads to more reduction
than the other one actually, as of:
4 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 447 deletions(-)
Like the previous one, the functions have the same names and the field
names are updated to fit in the picture. Thoughts?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Generate-stat-functions-for-db-entries.patch | text/x-diff | 23.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-12-06 03:18:05 | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-06 02:32:23 | Re: Error-safe user functions |