On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 02:24:52PM +0200, Bernd Reiß wrote:
> @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ pgstat_count_io_op_time(IOObject io_object, IOContext
> io_context, IOOp io_op,
> {
> if (io_op == IOOP_WRITE || io_op == IOOP_EXTEND)
> {
> -
> pgstat_count_buffer_write_time(INSTR_TIME_GET_MICROSEC(io_time));
> + INSTR_TIME_ADD(pgStatBlockWriteTime, io_time);
> if (io_object == IOOBJECT_RELATION)
> INSTR_TIME_ADD(pgBufferUsage.shared_blk_write_time,
> io_time);
> else if (io_object == IOOBJECT_TEMP_RELATION)
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ pgstat_count_io_op_time(IOObject io_object, IOContext
> io_context, IOOp io_op,
> }
> else if (io_op == IOOP_READ)
> {
> -
> pgstat_count_buffer_read_time(INSTR_TIME_GET_MICROSEC(io_time));
> + INSTR_TIME_ADD(pgStatBlockReadTime, io_time);
> if (io_object == IOOBJECT_RELATION)
> INSTR_TIME_ADD(pgBufferUsage.shared_blk_read_time,
> io_time);
> else if (io_object == IOOBJECT_TEMP_RELATION)Hmm. This part of the patch touches a performance-sensitive area. This is exchanging one addition for another, which I doubt really matters, but who knows.. Andres, any thoughts perhaps? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
