MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA5RZ0vMW+0_6FYtFEaN-NAnk1sT2ucCUDJe0-xKwZriROV--A@mail.gmail.com>
 <emfe7f88ae-6f9a-469e-98f4-7eb9fbfddcfe@cybertec.at> <aYmfC5_vAZmaAAy9@msg.df7cb.de>
 <CAA5RZ0sxPWP2xm8fxhscE+cUqC2VSFi9UZ9882BdGZ0MbGQNUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK7ymc+0z7pL-Jub_52JDCyByxK3iYG7KHmudhsjgzF4WGmY0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAA5RZ0sUjsmCNTRHmpOpYNLJ0vbAMc00aJGtCeh6k3YKNw0LQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA5RZ0sUjsmCNTRHmpOpYNLJ0vbAMc00aJGtCeh6k3YKNw0LQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pavlo Golub <pavlo.golub@cybertec.at>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:30:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK7ymc+Kr7i6p_6Hw_2hEg3xVRH8FYnnrEp0PHg+jeMvqH7mLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add last_executed timestamp to pg_stat_statements
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, 
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAK7ymc%2BKr7i6p_6Hw_2hEg3xVRH8FYnnrEp0PHg%2BjeMvqH7mLg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi!

> I am not sure if this benchmark is enough to build confidence in this approach.
> Workloads with nested queries and tack. 'all' are now paying an even heavier
> cost.

I would love to see and test sql that will reveal the bigger overhead.
Do you have something specific on your mind? I'd love to share
results, we can use them later considering further updates to pgss.

>
> Also, quickly looking at v4, you probably want to call GetCurrentTimestamp()
> when kind == PGSS_EXEC only.


Fair enough! Thanks for noticing!