| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)fdr(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | samthakur74 <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
| Date: | 2013-09-20 08:31:08 |
| Message-ID: | CACN56+MgKBfHb_fKLgWyhSBTrVtW8XhG=1udy8XA9L29sFuyVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)fdr(dot)io> wrote:
> I think the n-call underestimation propagation may not be quite precise for
> various detailed reasons (having to do with 'sticky' queries) and to make it
> precise is probably more work than it's worth. And, on more reflection, I'm
> also having a hard time imaging people intuiting that value usefully. So,
> here's a version removing that.
I forgot about removal of the relevant SGML, amended here in v6.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg_stat_statements-identification-v6.patch | application/octet-stream | 24.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2013-09-20 10:09:40 | Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-09-20 08:11:37 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |