Re: stored procedure stats in collector - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: stored procedure stats in collector
Date
Msg-id 14479.1190648216@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stored procedure stats in collector  (Martin Pihlak <martin.pihlak@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: stored procedure stats in collector  (Martin Pihlak <martin.pihlak@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Martin Pihlak <martin.pihlak@gmail.com> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> That seems a confusing set of values. Perhaps "off", "pl", and "all"
>> would be clearer?

> Makes sense. It appears that the stats_ prefixed GUC names are deprecated now.
> Will rename to "track_functions" and change values to "off", "pl" and
> "all". Or should I use "none" instead of "off"?

"None" seems good, by analogy with log_statement's values.

> It seems that the overhead is unnoticeable if disabled, very visible
> for lightweight functions and heavy callers. Almost unnoticeable for
> more compute intensive functions.

The very high system times seem odd.  Maybe you have a machine with
slow gettimeofday()?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3