Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Fujii Masao
> masao.fujii@.nttdata
> writes:
>> Does anyone object to this patch? I'm thinking to commit it separetely
>> at first before committing the planning_counter_in_pg_stat_statements
>> patch.
>
> I took a quick look through
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
> > Does anyone object to this patch? I'm thinking to commit it separetely
> > at first before committing the planning_counter_in_pg_stat_statements
> > patch.
>
> I took a quick look through
Fujii Masao writes:
> Does anyone object to this patch? I'm thinking to commit it separetely
> at first before committing the planning_counter_in_pg_stat_statements
> patch.
I took a quick look through v9-0001-Pass-query-string-to-the-planner.patch
and it's fine by me. It also matches up with
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:54:35PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2020/03/10 6:31, legrand legrand wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is a call for committers, reviewers and users,
> > regarding "planning counters in pg_stat_statements"
> > patch [1] but not only.
>
> Does anyone object to this
On 2020/03/10 6:31, legrand legrand wrote:
Hello,
This is a call for committers, reviewers and users,
regarding "planning counters in pg_stat_statements"
patch [1] but not only.
Does anyone object to this patch? I'm thinking to commit it separetely
at first before committing the
Hello,
This is a call for committers, reviewers and users,
regarding "planning counters in pg_stat_statements"
patch [1] but not only.
Historically, this version of pg_stat_statements
with planning counters was performing 3 calls to
pgss_store() for non utility statements in:
1 -
