The attached small patch changes the data type in the document.
The following columns are actually double precision but bigint in the docs.
jit_generation_time
jit_inlining_time
jit_optimization_time
jit_emission_count
Regards,
Noriyoshi Shinoda
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 8:47 PM To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org> Subject: Re: Expose JIT counters/timing in pg_stat_statements
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:08 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 01:40:34PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I wonder if there might be an interesting middle ground, or if that is > making it too much. That is, we could have an > Option 3: > jit_count > total_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time > min_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time > max_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time > mean_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time > stddev_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time > jit_functions > jit_generation_time > jit_inlining_count > jit_inlining_time > jit_optimization_count > jit_optimization_time > jit_emission_count > jit_emission_time > > That is, we'd get the more detailed timings across the total time, but > not on the details. But that might be overkill.
I also thought about it but it seems overkill. pg_stat_statements view is already very big, and I think that the JIT time should be somewhat stable, at least compared to how much a query execution time can vary depending on the parameters. This approach would also be a bit useless if you change the costing of underlying JIT operation.
> But -- here's an updated patched based on Option 2.
Thanks!
Code-wide, the patch looks good. For the doc, it seems that you documented jit_inlining_count three times rather than documenting jit_optimization_count and jit_emission_count.
Oops, thanks and fixed.
I don't think we can add tests there, and having a test for every new counter being >= 0 seems entirely useless, however there should be a new test added for the "oldextversions" test to make sure that there's no issue with old SQL / new shlib compatibility. And looking at it I see that it was already missed for version 1.9 :(
Indeed. Fixed here.
Michael had already applied a patch that took us to 1.10 and added that test, so I've just updated it here. I don't think we normally bump the version twice int he same day, so I just mergd the SQL script changes as well.
