On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 18:56 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Maybe a macro would be better here? I don't know if that's generally
> ok or
> just old and not-that-great code, but there are other places relying
> on macros
> when a plain function call isn't that convenient (like here returning
> 0 or 1 as
> a hack for incrementing num_remove), for instance in hba.c.
Yes, it is not very convenient and not looks pretty, so I'll try a
macro here soon.
> > I think that if we can do it in accurate way and there is no
> > obvious
> > side effects, why not to try it...
> > Changing of pg_stat_statements_reset function result caused a
> > confiderable tests update. Also, I'm not sure that my description
> > of
> > this feature in the docs is blameless..
> >
> > After all, I'm a little bit in doubt about this feature, so I'm
> > ready
> > to rollback it.
>
> Well, I personally don't think that I would need it for powa as it's
> designed
> to have very frequent snapshot. I know you have a different approach
> in
> pg_profile, but I'm not sure it will be that useful for you either?
Of course I can do some workaround if the accurate reset time will be
unavailable. I just want to do the whole thing if it doesn't hurt. If
we have a plenty of timestamps saved now, I think it is a good idea to
have then bound to some milestones. At least it is a pretty equal join
condition between samples.
But if you think we should avoid returning ts here I won't insist on
that.
