Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-05-16 Thread Dmitry Ivanov
I am not actively working on this now, but I'll come back to it for PG12 if you or Lukas don't beat me to it, and I'll help/test/review if I you do. It seems there is plenty of demand for the feature and I'll be very happy to see it. Good to know, thanks! I'd argue that it might be better to

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-05-15 Thread Thomas Munro
Hi Dmitry, On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: > Is anybody still working on this? Are there any plans to add this to > commitfest? I am not actively working on this now, but I'll come back to it for PG12 if you or Lukas don't beat me to it, and I'll

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-05-15 Thread Dmitry Ivanov
Hi, Is anybody still working on this? Are there any plans to add this to commitfest? I'd like to add planning time to auto_explain, and it turns out that this patch is somewhat relevant to that feature. The current approach here is to set planning_time in PlannedStmt via planner_hook,

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-03-30 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Lukas Fittl wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> > Unfortunately I'm not going to have bandwidth to figure this out >> > during this commitfest due to other priorities so I'm going to call >> > this

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-03-30 Thread Lukas Fittl
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Unfortunately I'm not going to have bandwidth to figure this out > > during this commitfest due to other priorities so I'm going to call > > this "returned with feedback". > > OK. There's still time to get it done in the

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Munro writes: > One problem is that pgss_planner_hook doesn't have the source query > text. That problem could be solved by adding a query_string argument > to the planner hook function type and also planner(), > standard_planner(), pg_plan_query(),

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-23 Thread Thomas Munro
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> What we could/should do instead, I think, is have pgss_planner_hook >> make its own pgss_store() call to log the planning time results >>

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-18 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Haribabu Kommi writes: >>> I checked the latest patch and it is working fine and I don't have any >>> further comments. Marked the patch as "ready for committer". > >> I started to look

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-12 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Haribabu Kommi writes: >> I checked the latest patch and it is working fine and I don't have any >> further comments. Marked the patch as "ready for committer". > I started to look at this patch, ... looking further, I'm really seriously unhappy about this

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-12 Thread Tom Lane
Haribabu Kommi writes: > I checked the latest patch and it is working fine and I don't have any > further comments. Marked the patch as "ready for committer". I started to look at this patch, and I'm not entirely convinced whether it is a good thing for the planner_hook

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-11 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Thomas Munro < thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > > +OUT plans int8, > > > > Addition of this column is good to find out how many time the plan is > > generated > >

Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements

2018-01-10 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Hi hackers, > > I have often wanted $SUBJECT and was happy to find that Fujii-san had > posted a patch five years ago[1]. The reception then seemed positive. > So here is a refurbished and (hopefully) improved