Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> Ok. Here is an updated version, with a better suffix and a simplified
> comment.
Doesn't this break the handling of latency calculations, or at least make
the results completely different for the last metacommand than what they
would be for a non-last command? It looks like it needs to loop back so
that the latency calculation is completed for the metacommand before it
can exit. Seems to me it would probably make more sense to fall out at
the end of the "transaction finished" if-block, around line 1923 in HEAD.
(The code structure in here seems like a complete mess to me, but probably
now is not the time to refactor it.)
regards, tom lane
