Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?
От | Nitin Jadhav |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMm1aWZRcG2OsqcvDJVCoOeUjf_G2Mh=STUpmmMj+XG87Xx8sQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view? (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Apr-06, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
>
> > I have reviewed the code. Here are a few minor comments.
> >
> > 1.
> > +void
> > +pgstat_report_queryid(uint64 queryId, bool force)
> > +{
> > + volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry;
> > +
> > + if (!beentry)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * if track_activities is disabled, st_queryid should already have been
> > + * reset
> > + */
> > + if (!pgstat_track_activities)
> > + return;
> >
> > The above two conditions can be clubbed together in a single condition.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put the assignment *after* we
> have checked the second condition.
All other pgstat_report_* functions do the assignment before doing any test on
beentry and/or pgstat_track_activities, I think we should keep this code
consistent.
I agree about this.
Thanks and Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:18 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Apr-06, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
>
> > I have reviewed the code. Here are a few minor comments.
> >
> > 1.
> > +void
> > +pgstat_report_queryid(uint64 queryId, bool force)
> > +{
> > + volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry;
> > +
> > + if (!beentry)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * if track_activities is disabled, st_queryid should already have been
> > + * reset
> > + */
> > + if (!pgstat_track_activities)
> > + return;
> >
> > The above two conditions can be clubbed together in a single condition.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put the assignment *after* we
> have checked the second condition.
All other pgstat_report_* functions do the assignment before doing any test on
beentry and/or pgstat_track_activities, I think we should keep this code
consistent.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: