From: "Pavlo Golub" <pavlo.golub@cybertec.at>
To: "Christoph Berg" <myon@debian.org>
Subject: Re[2]: [PATCH] Add last_executed timestamp to pg_stat_statements
Cc: "Sami Imseih" <samimseih@gmail.com>, "Bertrand Drouvot"
 <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org"
 <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 12:57:24 +0000
Message-Id: <em462c0bc8-4dcd-4c36-b416-e3bc194fa770@cybertec.at>
In-Reply-To: <aYXcteoB-JSqP4m9@msg.df7cb.de>
References: <em5be966c3-9086-4f3f-b516-97444b854fdf@10e48d49.com>
 <CAA5RZ0u6qdcLoWJJz5mUB_VYZqT__U-HJJ5_ioYO7XGsUfXfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aYIh7I9khvoewwH_@msg.df7cb.de>
 <CAA5RZ0tH_+3JGMCktkp8EMyvKaRAJf-xRh+y_UoZ8azvuUEAYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aYMKolTlvzenr4Pk@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAK7ymc+E00zKC9Da+BK2se=O2RiOUkdW5dz4iAynD1Vj=Pwexg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0u_jjiLc_w4nksdVazvvqtE17C1nM=sKf9fy5x02orfsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <emed32d635-e46b-4f08-9085-3fd822fe5765@cybertec.at>
 <aYXH4hkFc_2xOa8t@msg.df7cb.de>
 <ema0100e49-522e-4b8f-9c25-9257af1f0793@cybertec.at>
 <aYXcteoB-JSqP4m9@msg.df7cb.de>
Reply-To: "Pavlo Golub" <pavlo.golub@cybertec.at>
User-Agent: eM_Client/10.4.4209.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/em462c0bc8-4dcd-4c36-b416-e3bc194fa770%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

>
>Is this extra complexity worth one saved GetCurrentTimestamp()?

I'm not sure really. But I really need a new column in one way or=20
another, so I can agree to whatever decision we'll make.
>
>
>src/backend/access/transam/xact.c is calling GetCurrentTimestamp a
>lot already, so I don't really buy the argument it should be avoided
>at all cost in pg_stat_statements. Just storing the statement end time
>would make this use case much nicer.
+1

Maybe just move GetCurrentTimestamp outside of spin lock is engouh=20
already?

>
>
>Christoph