On 2020/04/02 15:01, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 01:05:56PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/04/02 3:47, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:51 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
On 2020/03/31 10:31, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:15:59PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
Rebase due to conflict with 3ec20c7091e97.
This is failing to apply probably since
4a539a25ebfc48329fd656a95f3c1eb2cda38af3.
Could you rebase? (Also, not sure if this can be set as RFC?)
I updated the patch. Attached.
Thanks a lot! I'm sorry I missed Justin's ping, and it I just
realized that my cron job that used to warn me about cfbot failure was
broken :(
+/* Compute the difference between two BufferUsage */
+BufferUsage
+ComputeBufferCounters(BufferUsage *start, BufferUsage *stop)
Since BufferUsageAccumDiff() was exported, ComputeBufferCounters() is
no longer necessary. In the patched version, BufferUsageAccumDiff() is
used to calculate the difference of buffer usage.
Indeed, exposing BufferUsageAccumDiff wa definitely a good thing!
+ if (es->summary && (planduration || es->buffers))
+ ExplainOpenGroup("Planning", "Planning", true, es);
Isn't it more appropriate to check "bufusage" instead of "es->buffers" here?
The patch changes the code so that "bufusage" is checked.
AFAICS not unless ExplainOneQuery is also changed to pass a NULL
pointer if the BUFFER option wasn't provided (and maybe also
optionally skip the planning buffer computation). With this version
you now get:
=# explain (analyze, buffers off) update t1 set id = id;
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update on t1 (cost=0.00..22.70 rows=1270 width=42) (actual
time=0.170..0.170 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..22.70 rows=1270 width=42) (actual
time=0.050..0.054 rows=1 loops=1)
Planning Time: 1.461 ms
Buffers: shared hit=25
Execution Time: 1.071 ms
(5 rows)
which seems wrong to me.
I reused the es->buffers to avoid having needing something like:
Yes, you're right! So I updated the patch as you suggested.
Attached is the updated version of the patch.
Thanks for the review!
Thanks a lot, it all looks good to me!
Thanks! Barring any objection, I will commit the latest version of the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
