Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)
Date
Msg-id 12414.1255528608@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)  (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)
List pgsql-hackers
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 2. I do not understand the stuff with propagating counts into the top
>> instrumentation node.

> It is required by contrib/pg_stat_statements. EXPLAIN wants per-node
> accumulation, but pg_stat_statements wants the total number.

Well, you need to find another way or risk getting the patch rejected
altogether.  Those global variables are the weakest part of the whole
design, and I'm not going to commit a patch that destabilizes the entire
system for the sake of a debatable "requirement" of a contrib module.

If you went with the alternative definition I suggested (don't reset the
static counters, so that every node includes its children's counts) then
the behavior you want would fall out automatically.  Or, at the price of
running both resettable and non-resettable static counters, you could
have pg_stat_statements obtain totals that are independent of any
particular instrumentation node.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot standby, xlog_xact_assignment and unreported subxids.
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords