Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2008-03-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the next commit-fest: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Martin Pihlak wrote: Howdy, Here's an updated version of the function stats patch. The biggest change is

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2008-03-20 Thread Martin Pihlak
Howdy, Did you post an updated patch to HEAD? No, but I guess its just about time. Hopefully I'll have something to show next week. regards, Martin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

[HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2008-03-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hi, Good. I'll bring the patch up to date with HEAD. Did you post an updated patch to HEAD? -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Martin Pihlak wrote: Howdy, Here's an updated version of the function stats patch. The biggest change is that

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-26 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 05:34:32PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: That seems a confusing set of values. Perhaps off, pl, and all would be clearer? I'm curious if you've measured the performance overhead of enabling this functionality. i'm quite worried about all setting. all operators are

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-26 Thread Martin Pihlak
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 05:34:32PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: That seems a confusing set of values. Perhaps off, pl, and all would be clearer? I'm curious if you've measured the performance overhead of enabling this functionality. i'm quite worried about all

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-24 Thread Martin Pihlak
Neil Conway wrote: On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:08 +0300, Martin Pihlak wrote: The GUC variable stats_function_level now takes 3 values: on, off and all. That seems a confusing set of values. Perhaps off, pl, and all would be clearer? Makes sense. It appears that the stats_ prefixed GUC names

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-24 Thread Tom Lane
Martin Pihlak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neil Conway wrote: That seems a confusing set of values. Perhaps off, pl, and all would be clearer? Makes sense. It appears that the stats_ prefixed GUC names are deprecated now. Will rename to track_functions and change values to off, pl and all. Or

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-24 Thread Martin Pihlak
It seems that the overhead is unnoticeable if disabled, very visible for lightweight functions and heavy callers. Almost unnoticeable for more compute intensive functions. The very high system times seem odd. Maybe you have a machine with slow gettimeofday()? So it seems (on Ubuntu 7.04).

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-20 Thread Martin Pihlak
Howdy, Here's an updated version of the function stats patch. The biggest change is that by default only procedural language functions are counted. The GUC variable stats_function_level now takes 3 values: on, off and all. The latter also counts SQL and C language functions, on means only to

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-09-20 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:08 +0300, Martin Pihlak wrote: The GUC variable stats_function_level now takes 3 values: on, off and all. That seems a confusing set of values. Perhaps off, pl, and all would be clearer? I'm curious if you've measured the performance overhead of enabling this

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-07-16 Thread Martin Pihlak
Neil Conway wrote: (schemaname, procname, nargs) is still ambiguous in the face of function overloading. Although the presence of procid uniquely identifies each function anyway, if you're going to include the name and argument information, it might be worth including the argument types as well

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-07-16 Thread Martin Pihlak
Tom Lane wrote: I really dislike that approach to deciding which functions to count. The main problem with it is that it will try to count C-language functions that are added after initdb, such as contrib stuff and third-party add-ons like postgis. The percentage overhead for a typical short C

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
Martin Pihlak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm working on a patch to extend the stats collector to handle stored procedure statistics (call counts, duration etc). ... Only functions with oid = FirstNormalObjectId are accounted. I really dislike that approach to deciding which functions to

[HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-07-13 Thread Martin Pihlak
Howdy, I'm working on a patch to extend the stats collector to handle stored procedure statistics (call counts, duration etc). The goal is to make this information visible via pg_stat functions/views. The collection would be controllable via stats_function_level GUC and will have minimal

Re: [HACKERS] stored procedure stats in collector

2007-07-13 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:11 +0300, Martin Pihlak wrote: I'm working on a patch to extend the stats collector to handle stored procedure statistics (call counts, duration etc). The goal is to make this information visible via pg_stat functions/views. The collection would be controllable via