pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: legrand legrand <legrand_legrand@hotmail.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:06:35 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <1582902395847-0.post@n3.nabble.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOBaU_YwuN2k9Ays8mKq0pS8ZjLsf7zMWRFk8yb-MF0O5to_cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OSBPR01MB46160534A6DF796D180FA88E94700@OSBPR01MB4616.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAOBaU_YKtC78KmEc_W98yz=BGKd3Lgx-q7D37_sTA9VdsW+xOQ@mail.gmail.com>
<OSBPR01MB461651369C5B06C4BAEDF4D3944F0@OSBPR01MB4616.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAOBaU_bZwSHVNVX_v3+_vqmrvAE0gcp6YczWS1kL74LUZ=fMgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<OSBPR01MB46160EE594D4C0261C0A4B7694490@OSBPR01MB4616.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAOBaU_bKDoMxEWLqJue8ZS-kamcwKS2zUROONjEtp_sHmbBegg@mail.gmail.com>
<1578237055901-0.post@n3.nabble.com>
<CAOBaU_Z9AyNbsgXmdeQeRAknjqeRfeBEDT8F8Q35DFLQU37g3A@mail.gmail.com>
<1578247319224-0.post@n3.nabble.com>
<CAOBaU_YwuN2k9Ays8mKq0pS8ZjLsf7zMWRFk8yb-MF0O5to_cA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Julien,
>> But I would have prefered this new feature to work the same way with or
>> without track_planning activated ;o(
> Definitely, but fixing the issue in pgss (ignoring planner calls when
> we don't have a query text) means that pgss won't give an exhaustive
> view of activity anymore, so a fix in IVM would be a better solution.
> Let's wait and see if Nagata-san and other people involved in that
> have an opinion on it.
It seems IVM team does not consider this point as a priority ...
We should not wait for them, if we want to keep a chance to be
included in PG13.
So we have to make this feature more robust, an assert failure being
considered as a severe regression (even if this is not coming from pgss).
I like the idea of adding a check for a non-zero queryId in the new
pgss_planner_hook() (zero queryid shouldn't be reserved for
utility_statements ?).
Fixing the corner case where a query (with no sql text) can be planned
without being parsed is an other subject that should be resolved in an
other thread.
This kind of query was ignored in pgss, it should be ignored in pgss with
planning counters.
Any thoughts ?
Regards
PAscal
--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
view thread (127+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <1582902395847-0.post@n3.nabble.com>
Permalink: ../1582902395847-0.post@n3.nabble.com/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/1582902395847-0.post@n3.nabble.com
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: legrand_legrand@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
In-Reply-To: <1582902395847-0.post@n3.nabble.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox