Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEYLb_UacLG7ezPwrpm+8F-nmO_MEX8Sjc5YT0v=ppoQ=P4fmA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> writes: >> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but >> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and, >> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be >> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between >> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a >> contiguously maintained statistic on a query. > > This argument seems sensible to me. Is there any use-case where the > proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed > hash value? Yes. The hash could be used to aggregate query execution costs across entire WAL-based replication clusters. I'm not opposed to Daniel's suggestion, though. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: