On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:02 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > On 2020/03/27 19:00, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:22:47PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:08:35PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >>> > >>> Here are other comments. > >>> > >>> - if (jstate) > >>> + if (kind == PGSS_JUMBLE) > >>> > >>> Why is PGSS_JUMBLE necessary? ISTM that we can still use jstate here, > >>> instead. > >>> > >>> If it's ok to remove PGSS_JUMBLE, we can define PGSS_NUM_KIND(=2) instead > >>> and replace 2 in, e.g., total_time[2] with PGSS_NUM_KIND. Thought? > >> > >> Yes, we could be using jstate here. I originally used that to avoid > >> passing > >> PGSS_EXEC (or the other one) as a way to say "ignore this information as > >> there's the jstate which says it's yet another meaning". If that's not an > >> issue, I can change that as PGSS_NUM_KIND will clearly improve the > >> explicit "2" > >> all over the place. > > > > Done, passing PGSS_PLAN when jumble is intended, with a comment saying that > > the > > pgss_kind is ignored in that case. > > > >>> + <entry><structfield>total_time</structfield></entry> > >>> + <entry><type>double precision</type></entry> > >>> + <entry></entry> > >>> + <entry> > >>> + Total time spend planning and executing the statement, in > >>> milliseconds > >>> + </entry> > >>> + </row> > >>> > >>> pg_stat_statements view has this column but the function not. > >>> We should make both have the column or not at all, for consistency? > >>> I'm not sure if it's good thing to expose the sum of total_plan_time > >>> and total_exec_time as total_time. If some users want that, they can > >>> easily calculate it from total_plan_time and total_exec_time by using > >>> their own logic. > >> > >> I think we originally added it as a way to avoid too much compatibility > >> break, > >> and also because it seems like a field most users will be interested in > >> anyway. > >> Now that I'm thinking about it again, I indeed think it was a mistake to > >> have > >> that in view part only. Not mainly for consistency, but for users who > >> would be > >> interested in the total_time field while not wanting to pay the overhead of > >> retrieving the query text if they don't need it. So I'll change that! > > > > Done > > > >>> + nested_level++; > >>> + PG_TRY(); > >>> > >>> In old thread [1], Tom Lane commented the usage of nested_level > >>> in the planner hook. There seems no reply to that so far. What's > >>> your opinion about that comment? > >>> > >>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28980.1515803...@sss.pgh.pa.us > >> > >> Oh thanks, I didn't noticed this part of the discussion. I agree with > >> Tom's > >> concern, and I think that having a specific nesting level variable for the > >> planner is the best workaround, so I'll implement that. > > > > Done. > > > > I also exported BufferUsageAccumDiff as mentioned previously, as it seems > > clearner and will avoid future useless code churn, and run pgindent. > > > > v10 attached. > > Thanks for updating the patches! > > Regarding 0001 patch, I have one nitpicking comment; > > - result = standard_planner(parse, cursorOptions, boundParams); > + result = standard_planner(parse, query_text, cursorOptions, > boundParams); > > -standard_planner(Query *parse, int cursorOptions, ParamListInfo boundParams) > +standard_planner(Query *parse, const char *querytext, int cursorOptions, > + ParamListInfo boundParams) > > -pg_plan_query(Query *querytree, int cursorOptions, ParamListInfo boundParams) > +pg_plan_query(Query *querytree, const char *query_text, int cursorOptions, > + ParamListInfo boundParams) > > The patch uses "query_text" and "querytext" as the name of newly-added > argument. They should be unified? IMO "query_string" looks better name > because it's used in other functions like pg_analyze_and_rewrite(), > pg_parse_query() for the sake of consistency. Thought?
Indeed, and +1 for query_text.
