Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Zipg4-0007ib-6l for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:14:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Zipg2-0004VO-RF for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:14:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Zipg2-0004VI-GW for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:14:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Zipfz-0005d5-Q5 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:14:34 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t94KEO6t026695; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:14:24 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Jim Nasby , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements In-reply-to: References: <5601D354.5000703@BlueTreble.com> <15898.1442965225@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5913.1443822154@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9935.1443828452@sss.pgh.pa.us> <32385.1443976035@sss.pgh.pa.us> <26165.1443988873@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Sun, 04 Oct 2015 13:12:15 -0700" Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 16:14:24 -0400 Message-ID: <26694.1443989664@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm. The problem I've got with this is that then mean_query_len means >> something significantly different after entry_dealloc than it does >> after gc_texts. >> >> I'd be okay with changing *both* of those functions to ignore sticky >> entries in the calculation, if that seems reasonable to you. > That seems perfectly reasonable, yes. Should I leave that to you? Sure, I can take it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers