From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Sameer Thakur <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
Date: | 2013-10-10 18:48:22 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEKn=6TFimphaT_c2ExXRGa2YzGDrtT1xf5MPukn-DfpA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Daniel Farina escribió:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> > In my test, I found that pg_stat_statements.total_time always indicates a zero.
>> > I guess that the patch might handle pg_stat_statements.total_time wrongly.
>> >
>> > + values[i++] = DatumGetTimestamp(
>> > + instr_get_timestamptz(pgss->session_start));
>> > + values[i++] = DatumGetTimestamp(
>> > + instr_get_timestamptz(entry->introduced));
>> >
>> > These should be executed only when detected_version >= PGSS_TUP_LATEST?
>>
>> Yes. Oversight.
>
> Hmm, shouldn't this be conditional on a new PGSS_TUP_V1_2?
I was just thinking the same thing. Agreed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-10-10 18:48:31 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-10-10 18:47:22 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |