Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)
От | Itagaki Takahiro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20091005115056.9CE1.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. I would suggest something like "Blocks > Read: %ld Hit: %ld Temp Read: %ld\n". See the way we handle output > of sort type and space usage, for example. I have some questions: * Did you use single space and double spaces in your example intentionally? * Should we use lowercases here? * Can I use "temp" instead of "Temp Read" to shorten the name? > 2. Similarly, in pg_stat_statements, the Counters structure could > easily use the same names for the structure members that we already > use in e.g. pg_stat_database - blks_hit, blks_read, and, say, > blks_temp_read. In fact I tend to think we should stick with "blocks" > rather than "buffers" overall, for consistency with what the system > does elsewhere. I agree to rename them into blks_*, but EXPLAIN (blocks) might be misleading; EXPLAIN (buffer) can be interpreted as "buffer usage", but normally we don't call it "block usage". My suggestion is: * EXPLAIN (buffers) prints (blocks read: %ld hit: %ld temp: %ld) * auto_explain.log_buffers are notchanged * pg_stat_statements uses blks_hit and blks_read > 4. "Instrumentation stack is broken" doesn't seem terribly helpful in > understanding what has gone wrong. This message is only for hackers and should not occur. Assert() might be ok instead. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: