On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Daniel Farina <dan...@fdr.io> wrote: > I think the n-call underestimation propagation may not be quite precise for > various detailed reasons (having to do with 'sticky' queries) and to make it > precise is probably more work than it's worth. And, on more reflection, I'm > also having a hard time imaging people intuiting that value usefully. So, > here's a version removing that.
I forgot about removal of the relevant SGML, amended here in v6.
pg_stat_statements-identification-v6.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
