This message lost track of the email headers so CFBOT isn't processing the new
patches. Which I'm attempting to remedy now.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ae576cac3f451d318374f2a2e494aab1@postgrespro.ru
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:46:47PM +0300, Ekaterina Sokolova wrote:
> Hi, hackers. Thank you for your attention to this topic.
>
> Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > +static void show_loop_info(Instrumentation *instrument, bool isworker,
> > + ExplainState *es);
> >
> > I think this should be done as a separate refactoring commit.
> Sure. I divided the patch. Now Justin's refactor commit is separated. Also I
> actualized it a bit.
>
> > Most of the comments I have are easy to fix. But I think that the real
> > problem
> > is the significant overhead shown by Ekaterina that for now would apply
> > even if
> > you don't consume the new stats, for instance if you have
> > pg_stat_statements.
> > And I'm still not sure of what is the best way to avoid that.
> I took your advice about InstrumentOption. Now INSTRUMENT_EXTRA exists.
> So currently it's no overheads during basic load. Operations using
> INSTRUMENT_ALL contain overheads (because of INSTRUMENT_EXTRA is a part of
> INSTRUMENT_ALL), but they are much less significant than before. I apply new
> overhead statistics collected by pgbench with auto _explain enabled.
>
> > Why do you need to initialize min_t and min_tuples but not max_t and
> > max_tuples while both will initially be 0 and possibly updated
> > afterwards?
> We need this initialization for min values so comment about it located above
> the block of code with initialization.
>
> I am convinced that the latest changes have affected the patch in a positive
> way. I'll be pleased to hear your thoughts on this.
