Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Zirbc-0007Qu-EB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:18:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Zirbb-00083i-VB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:18:08 +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 1ZiraI-0006VA-L7 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:16:46 +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 1ZiraB-000837-KT for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:16:46 +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 t94MGYFS030416; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 18:16:34 -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 13:25:21 -0700" Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:16:34 -0400 Message-ID: <30415.1443996994@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: > To be clear: I wasn't sure why you though I falsely count entries with > dropped texts within entry_dealloc(). In the existing^H^H^Hprevious code, dropped-text entries would essentially act as length-zero summands in the average calculation, whereas I think we agree that they ought to be ignored; otherwise they decrease the computed mean and thereby increase the probability of (useless) GC cycles. In the worst case where the hashtable is mostly dropped-text entries, which would for instance be the prevailing situation shortly after a GC failure, we'd be calculating ridiculously small mean values and that'd prompt extra GC cycles no? 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