Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > I'm looking at your patch now... It is almost there but has some issues. > > (i) documentation: you have more than three counters and they could be > mentioned in docs too.
I'll add documentation for all variables. > (ii) format: why does text output format have less counters than the other > ones? That's because lines will be too long for text format. I think the three values in it are the most important and useful ones. > (iii) string: i don't like the string in text format > (1) it is not concise (only the first item has the word 'Blocks'), > (2) what block is it about? Shared, Local, or Temp? The format was suggested here and no objections then. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00268.php I think the current output is enough and useful in normal use. We can use XML or JSON format for more details. I think Blocks Hit: 1641 Read: 0 Temp Read: 1443 means Blocks (Hit: 1641 Read: 0 Temp Read: 1443) i.e., Blocks of hit, blocks of reads, and Blocks of temp reads. > (3) why don't you include the other ones?, and > (4) why don't you include the written counters? > (iv) text format: i don't have a good suggestion but here are some ideas. The > former is too long and the latter is too verbose. Their reasons are the same as (ii). > (v) accumulative: i don't remember if we discussed it but is there a reason > the number of buffers isn't accumulative? We already have cost and time that > are both accumulative. I saw BufferUsageAccumDiff() function but didn't try to > figure out why it isn't accumulating or passing the counters to parent nodes. It's reasonable. I'll change so if no objections. > (vi) comment: the 'at start' is superfluous. Please, remove it. Ooops, I'll remove them. > (vii) all nodes: I'm thinking if we need this information in all nodes (even > in those nodes that don't read or write). It would be less verbose but it > could complicate some parser's life. Of course, if we suppress this > information, we need to include it on the top node even if we don't read or > write in it. I cannot understand what you mean -- should I suppress the lines when they have all-zero values? Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
