On 2020/06/11 14:59, torikoshia wrote:
On 2020-06-10 18:00, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:+ TupleDescInitEntry(tupdesc, (AttrNumber) 8, "last_plan", This could be a problem if we showed the last plan in this view. I think "last_plan_type" would be better. + if (prep_stmt->plansource->last_plan_type == PLAN_CACHE_TYPE_CUSTOM) + values[7] = CStringGetTextDatum("custom"); + else if (prep_stmt->plansource->last_plan_type == PLAN_CACHE_TYPE_GENERIC) + values[7] = CStringGetTextDatum("generic"); + else + nulls[7] = true; Using swith-case prevents future additional type (if any) from being unhandled. I think we are recommending that as a convension.Thanks for your reviewing! I've attached a patch that reflects your comments.
Thanks for the patch! Here are the comments. + Number of times generic plan was choosen + Number of times custom plan was choosen Typo: "choosen" should be "chosen"? + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> + <structfield>last_plan_type</structfield> <type>text</type> + </para> + <para> + Tells the last plan type was generic or custom. If the prepared + statement has not executed yet, this field is null + </para></entry> Could you tell me how this information is expected to be used? I think that generic_plans and custom_plans are useful when investigating the cause of performance drop by cached plan mode. But I failed to get how much useful last_plan_type is. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
