From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>
Cc: legrand legrand <legrand_legrand@hotmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements oddity with track = all
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 16:53:59 +0800
Message-ID: <20201203085359.GC8050@nol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1110111606984390@mail.yandex.ru>
References: <20201202040516.GA43757@nol>
<CANNMO+KrVxMTrzSJLkrkENQX7utVYo1SEyaW54N+Y-Zjew=wbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20201202063241.GA51769@nol>
<CANNMO++VRu2r17jqxBDFZF4++p+f4WE+VbvOPAQi_4BTwP4g=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20201203010051.GA8050@nol>
<1606983372910-0.post@n3.nabble.com>
<1110111606984390@mail.yandex.ru>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:40:22AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> > To get an increase in the number of records that means that the same
> > statement
> > would appear at top level AND nested level. This seems a corner case with
> > very low
> > (neglectible) occurence rate.
>
> +1
> I think splitting fields into plans_toplevel / plans_nested will be less convenient. And more code with higher chance of copypaste errors
As I mentioned in a previous message, I really have no idea if that would be a
corner case or not. For instance with native partitioning, the odds to have
many different query executed both at top level and as a nested statement may
be quite higher.
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: rjuju123@gmail.com, sk@zsrv.org, legrand_legrand@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements oddity with track = all
In-Reply-To: <20201203085359.GC8050@nol>
* 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