On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> However, the main thing here is that we need to do *something* here... > >>> Agreed, this has got to be pushed forward. > >> In the interest of furthering that goal, I propose that whoever is >> willing to take the time to clean this up gets to decide what to >> standardize on, and I'm happy to give you first crack at that if you >> have the cycles. > > OK. I have just returned from some emergency family business, and have > got assorted catching-up to do, but I will try to get to that later > this week.
Sounds good to me. You might want to revisit the issue of how the new columns in pg_stat_statements are named, as well. I am not sure I'm happy with that, but neither am I sure that I know what I'd like better. It's not too clear that the timing is specifically for data block reads and writes, for example. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
