Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)

On 2020/03/29 15:15, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:42:50PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:01 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> So what I'd like to say is that the information that users are interested
>>> in would vary on each situation and case. At least for me it seems
>>> enough for pgss to report only the basic information. Then users
>>> can calculate to get the numbers (like total_time) they're interested in,
>>> from those basic information.
>>>
>>> But of course, I'd like to hear more opinions about this...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Unless someone chime in by tomorrow, I'll just drop the sum as it
>> seems less controversial and not a blocker in userland if users are
>> interested.
> 
> Done in attached v11, with also the s/querytext/query_text/ discrepancy noted
> previously.

Thanks for updating the patch! But I still think query_string is better
name because it's used in other several places, for the sake of consistency.
So I changed the argument name that way and commit the 0001 patch.
If you think query_text is better, let's keep discussing this topic!

Anyway many thanks for your great job!

>>>> I also exported BufferUsageAccumDiff as mentioned previously, as it seems
>>>> clearner and will avoid future useless code churn, and run pgindent.
>>>
>>> Many thanks!! I'm thinking to commit this part separately.
>>> So I made that patch based on your patch. Attached.
>>
>> Thanks! It looks good to me.
> 
> I also kept that part in a distinct commit for convenience.

I also pushed 0002 patch. Thanks!

I will review 0003 patch again.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters