Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 81235.1627232375@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:03:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> So AFAICS this test is inherently unstable and there is no code bug >> to be fixed. We could drop the "plans" column from this query, or >> print something approximate like "plans > 0 AND plans <= calls". >> Thoughts? > I think we should go with the latter. Checking for a legit value, even if it's > a bit imprecise is still better than nothing. > 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? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: