On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> However, the main thing here is that we need to do *something* here...
>
>>> Agreed, this has got to be pushed forward.
>
>> In the interest of furthering that goal, I propose that whoever is
>> willing to take the time to clean this up gets to decide what to
>> standardize on, and I'm happy to give you first crack at that if you
>> have the cycles.
>
> OK. I have just returned from some emergency family business, and have
> got assorted catching-up to do, but I will try to get to that later
> this week.
Sounds good to me. You might want to revisit the issue of how the new
columns in pg_stat_statements are named, as well. I am not sure I'm
happy with that, but neither am I sure that I know what I'd like
better. It's not too clear that the timing is specifically for data
block reads and writes, for example.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
