Re: [PATCH] Add features to pg_stat_statements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 2020/11/09 18:02, Seino Yuki wrote:
> 2020-11-09 15:39 に Seino Yuki さんは書きました:
>>>>
>>>> However, let me confirm the following.
>>>>> Is this information really useful?
>>>>> If there is no valid use case for this, I'd like to drop it.
>>>>> Thought?
>>>>
>>>> I thought it would be easy for users to see at a glance that if there is a case I assumed,
>>>> if the last modified date and time is old, there is no need to adjust at all, and if the
>>>> last modified date and time is recent, it would be easy for users to understand that the
>>>> parameters need to be adjusted.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Even without the last deallocation timestamp, you can presume
>>> when the deallocation of entries happened by periodically monitoring
>>> the total number of deallocations and seeing those history. Or IMO
>>> it's better to log whenever the deallocation happens as proposed upthread.
>>> Then you can easily check the history of occurrences of deallocations
>>> from the log file.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>> +1.I think you should output the deallocation history to the log as well.
>>
>> In light of the above, I've posted a patch that reflects the points made.
>>
>> Regards,
> 
> Sorry. There was a typo in the documentation correction.
> I'll post a patch to fix it.

Thanks for updating the patch!

+        pgss_info->dealloc = 0;
+        SpinLockInit(&pgss_info->mutex);
+        Assert(pgss_info->dealloc == 0);

Why is this assertion check necessary? It seems not necessary.

+    {
+        Assert(found == found_info);

Having pgssSharedState and pgssInfoCounters separately might make
the code a bit more complicated like the above? If this is true, what about
including pgssInfoCounters in pgssSharedState?

PGSS_FILE_HEADER needs to be changed since the patch changes
the format of pgss file?

+    /* Read pgss_info */
+    if (feof(file) == 0)
+        if (fread(pgss_info, sizeof(pgssInfoCounters), 1, file) != 1)
+            goto read_error;

Why does feof(file) need to be called here?

+pgss_info_update(void)
+{
+    {

Why is the second "{" necessary? It seems redundant.

+pgss_info_reset(void)
+{
+    {

Same as above.

+pg_stat_statements_info(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+    int64        d_count = 0;
+    {

Same as above.

+        SpinLockAcquire(&c->mutex);
+        d_count = Int64GetDatum(c->dealloc);
+        SpinLockRelease(&c->mutex);

Why does Int64GetDatum() need to be called here? It seems not necessary.

+   <varlistentry>
+    <term>
+     <function>pg_stat_statements_info() returns bigint</function>
+     <indexterm>
+      <primary>pg_stat_statements_info</primary>
+     </indexterm>
+    </term>

Isn't it better not to expose pg_stat_statements_info() function in the
document because pg_stat_statements_info view is enough and there
seems no use case for the function?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION