Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS)
От | Haribabu Kommi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJrrPGe7SDbH26y_pYRLHiqcWD_tnSnDXjA0GozAB3-50AkdRA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:39 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> At Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:15:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in <20181117141554.4dkx2u4j6md3bqdh@alvherre.pgsql>
> > Is this patch committable now?
>
> I don't think so. We should make a decision on a point.
>
> I was a bit confused (sorry) but IIUIC Haribabu suggested that
> the RBM_ZERO_ON_ERROR case should be included to read (not just
> ignored). I'm on it. I think that RPM_ZERO_* other than ON_ERROR
> cases could be a kind of hit but I don't insist on it.
>
> So, I think we should decide on at least the ON_ERROR case before
> this becomes commttable.
Agreed, RBM_ZERO_ON_ERROR needs to be counted as a read. Here's a new
version like that.
> The another counter could be another issue. I don't object to add
> the counter but I'm not sure what is the suitable name.
I think that might be interesting information in the future, but let's
consider that for a later patch.
Thanks for the updated patch. It looks good.
I marked it in the commitfest as ready for committer.
Regards,
Haribabu Kommi
Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: