| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: track vacuum/analyze cumulative time per relation |
| Date: | 2025-01-27 13:31:06 |
| Message-ID: | Z5eKmuxH/x0+jWRV@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 09:30:16AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The addition of the extra GetCurrentTimestamp() in the report path
> does not stress me much,
Reading at the previous messages I see how you reached this state. I also think
that makes sense and that's not an issue as we are not in a hot path here.
> should just do the attached, which is simpler and addresses your
> use-case. Note also that the end time is acquired while the entries
> are not locked in the report routines, and some tweaks in the docs and
> comments.
LGTM.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tender Wang | 2025-01-27 13:40:15 | Re: Adjust tuples estimate for appendrels |
| Previous Message | Nitin Jadhav | 2025-01-27 12:45:09 | Back patch of Remove durable_rename_excl() |