On Tuesday, April 5, 2022, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-04-05 08:49:36 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more
> complicated.
> > > There
> > > is a *single* non-
Hi,
On 2022-04-05 08:49:36 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >
> > I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more complicated.
> > There
> > is a *single* non-assert use of accessed_across_databases and now a single
> > asserti
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more complicated.
> There
> is a *single* non-assert use of accessed_across_databases and now a single
> assertion involving it.
>
> What would having PGSTAT_KIND_CLUSTER and PGSTAT_KIND
Hi,
On 2022-04-04 19:03:13 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > > (if this is true...but given this is an optimization category I'm
> > thinking
> > > maybe it doesn't actually matter...)
> >
> > It is true. Not sure what you mean with "optimization category"?
> >
> >
> I mean that distinguishing b
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 3:44 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-04-04 15:24:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > Replacing the existing assert(!kind->fixed_amount) with
> > assert(!kind->accessed_across_databases) produces the same result as the
> > later presently implies the former.
>
>
Hi,
On 2022-04-04 15:24:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Replacing the existing assert(!kind->fixed_amount) with
> assert(!kind->accessed_across_databases) produces the same result as the
> later presently implies the former.
I wasn't proposing to replace, but to add...
> Now I start to dis
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > As the existing function only handles functions and relations why not
> just
> > perform a specific Kind check for them? Generalizing to assert on
> whether
> > or not the function works on fixed or variable Kinds seems beyond its
> > pre
Hi,
On 2022-04-04 14:25:57 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > You mentioned this as a restriction above - I'm not seeing it as such? I'd
> > like to write out stats more often in the future (e.g. in the
> > checkpointer),
> > but then it'd not be written out with this function...
> >
> >
> Yeah,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:06 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > My first encounter with pg_stat_exists_stat() didn't draw my attention as
> > being problematic so I'd say we just stick with it. As a SQL user
> reading:
> > WHERE exists (...) is somewhat natural; using "have" or back-to-back
> > stat_s
Hi,
On 2022-04-04 13:45:40 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I didn't take the time to fixup all the various odd typos in the general
> code comments; none of them reduced comprehension appreciably. I may do so
> when/if I do another pass.
Cool.
> My first encounter with pg_stat_exists_stat()
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:16 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Please take a look!
>
>
I didn't take the time to fixup all the various odd typos in the general
code comments; none of them reduced comprehension appreciably. I may do so
when/if I do another pass.
I did skim over the entire patch set and
Hi,
On 2022-04-03 21:15:16 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> - collect who reviewed earlier revisions
I found reviews by
- Tomas Vondra
- Arthur Zakirov
- Antonin Houska
There's also reviews by Fujii and Alvaro, but afaics just for parts that were
separately committed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi,
On 2022-04-05 01:16:04 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:16 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Please take a look!
>
> A few superficial comments:
>
> > [PATCH v68 01/31] pgstat: consistent function header formatting.
> > [PATCH v68 02/31] pgstat: remove some superflous comment
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:16 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Please take a look!
A few superficial comments:
> [PATCH v68 01/31] pgstat: consistent function header formatting.
> [PATCH v68 02/31] pgstat: remove some superflous comments from pgstat.h.
+1
> [PATCH v68 03/31] dshash: revise sequential s
14 matches
Mail list logo
