Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:03:59 +0200
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>,
	"imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com" <imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com>,
	legrand legrand <legrand_legrand@hotmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Message-ID: <20200330080359.GD79261@nol>
References: <20200320193004.rqgf3iim4fugq3sm@nol>
 <bdfee4e0-a304-2498-8da5-3cb52c0a193e@oss.nttdata.com>
 <20200325134553.GA14054@nol>
 <c20a2e2f-527d-cffd-a2c7-dde2bee23b3f@oss.nttdata.com>
 <20200326132242.GA80836@nol>
 <20200327100001.qarktrnxldmoxzgd@nol>
 <807c7d80-c748-3e86-d6e7-cfa01184ee92@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAOBaU_b3-YYooA5swR+=t5QzjFRnWhxNuZWhNtYb=dwQWq__FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200329061549.smtokn3ip5pqldia@nol>
 <8224bfdf-dcf8-648f-e0d8-1db1d5c215ee@oss.nttdata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8224bfdf-dcf8-648f-e0d8-1db1d5c215ee@oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:56:43PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2020/03/29 15:15, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:42:50PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:01 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > So what I'd like to say is that the information that users are interested
> > > > in would vary on each situation and case. At least for me it seems
> > > > enough for pgss to report only the basic information. Then users
> > > > can calculate to get the numbers (like total_time) they're interested in,
> > > > from those basic information.
> > > > 
> > > > But of course, I'd like to hear more opinions about this...
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > Unless someone chime in by tomorrow, I'll just drop the sum as it
> > > seems less controversial and not a blocker in userland if users are
> > > interested.
> > 
> > Done in attached v11, with also the s/querytext/query_text/ discrepancy noted
> > previously.
> 
> Thanks for updating the patch! But I still think query_string is better
> name because it's used in other several places, for the sake of consistency.

You're absolutely right.  That's what I actually wanted to do given your
previous comment, but somehow managed to miss it, sorry about that and thanks
for fixing.

> So I changed the argument name that way and commit the 0001 patch.
> If you think query_text is better, let's keep discussing this topic!
> 
> Anyway many thanks for your great job!

Thanks a lot!

> 
> > > > > I also exported BufferUsageAccumDiff as mentioned previously, as it seems
> > > > > clearner and will avoid future useless code churn, and run pgindent.
> > > > 
> > > > Many thanks!! I'm thinking to commit this part separately.
> > > > So I made that patch based on your patch. Attached.
> > > 
> > > Thanks! It looks good to me.
> > 
> > I also kept that part in a distinct commit for convenience.
> 
> I also pushed 0002 patch. Thanks!
> 
> I will review 0003 patch again.

And thanks for that too :)