Hi,
On 3/22/23 10:35 PM, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> What about using an uint64 for calls? That seems more appropriate to me (even if
>> queryDesc->totaltime->calls will be passed (which is int64), but that's already
>> also the case for the "rows" argument and queryDesc->totaltime->rows_processed)
>
> That's fair
>
>
>> I'm not sure it's worth mentioning that the new counters are "currently" used with the ExecutorRun.
>
> Sure, I suppose these fields could be used outside of ExecutorRun. Good point.
>
>
>> Also, I wonder if "rows" (and not rows_processed) would not be a better naming.
>
> Agree.
>
> I went with rows_processed initially, since it was accumulating es_processed,
> but as the previous point, this instrumentation could be used outside of
> ExecutorRun.
>
> v3 addresses the comments.
>
Thanks! LGTM and also do confirm that, with the patch, the JDBC test does show the correct results.
That said, not having a test (for the reasons you explained up-thread) associated with the patch worry me a bit.
But, I'm tempted to say that adding new tests could be addressed separately though (as this patch looks pretty
straightforward).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
