On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
<oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>> On 12/01/2015 10:34 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>>> I have the plans to make something from this on top of
>>> pg_stat_statements and auto_explain, as I've mentioned last time.  The
>>> next iteration will be based on the two latest patches above, so it
>>> still makes sense to review them.
>>> As for EXPLAIN ANALYZE support, it will require changes to core, but
>>> this can be done separately.
>> I'm re-reading the thread, and I have to admit I'm utterly confused what
>> is the current plan, what features it's supposed to provide and whether it
>> will solve the use case I'm most interested in. Oleksandr, could you please
>> post a summary explaining that?
>> My use case for this functionality is debugging of long-running queries,
>> particularly getting EXPLAIN ANALYZE for them. In such cases I either can't
>> run the EXPLAIN ANALYZE manually because it will either run forever (just
>> like the query) and may not be the same (e.g. due to recent ANALYZE). So we
>> need to extract the data from the process executing the query.
>> I'm not essentially opposed to doing this in an extension (better an
>> extension than nothing), but I don't quite see how you could to do that from
>> pg_stat_statements or auto_explain. AFAIK both extensions merely use hooks
>> before/after the executor, and therefore can't do anything in between (while
>> the query is actually running).
>> Perhaps you don't intend to solve this particular use case? Which use
>> cases are you aiming to solve, then? Could you explain?
> Thanks for your interest in this patch!
> My motivation is the same as your use case: having a long-running query, be
> able to look inside this exact query run by this exact backend.
> I admit the evolution of ideas in this patch can be very confusing: we were
> trying a number of different approaches, w/o thinking deeply on the
> implications, just to have a proof of concept.

It's great to see ideas of concepts and things to help address those
issues, at least we are agreeing that there is a hole in the
instrumentation and that it would be nice to fill it with something.
Still, it is not completely clear which approach would be taken. Is it
fair to mark the current patch as returned with feedback then?

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to