Hi, hackers.
I apply the new version of patch.
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> I'm curious to hear what you and others think of the refactoring.
Thank you so much. With your changes, the patch has become more
understandable and readable.
> It'd be nice if there's a good way to add a test case for verbose
> output
> involving parallel workers, but the output is unstable ...
Done!
Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com> wrote:
> I've briefly thought whether this needs documentation (currently the
> patch includes none),
> but there does not appear to be a good place to add documentation about
> this from a
> quick glance, so it seems acceptable to leave this out given the lack
> of more detailed
> EXPLAIN documentation in general.
You're right! I added feature description to the patch header.
> Whilst no specific bad cases were provided, I wonder if even a simple
> pgbench with
> auto_explain (and log_analyze=1) would be a way to test this?
I wanted to measure overheads, but could't choose correct way. Thanks
for idea with auto_explain.
I loaded it and made 10 requests of pgbench (number of clients: 1, of
threads: 1).
I'm not sure I chose the right way to measure overhead, so any
suggestions are welcome.
Current results are in file overhead_v0.txt.
Please feel free to share your suggestions and comments. Regards,
--
Ekaterina Sokolova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
