Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 2. I do not understand the stuff with propagating counts into the top > instrumentation node. That seems like it's going to double-count those > counts. In any case it is 100% inconsistent to propagate only buffer > counts that way and not any other resource usage. I think you should > drop the TopInstrument variable and the logic that propagates counts up.
It is required by contrib/pg_stat_statements. EXPLAIN wants per-node accumulation, but pg_stat_statements wants the total number. Is it enough to add a PG_TRY block to standard_ExecutorRun() to cleanup TopInstrument on error? I'm working on your other comments, but I cannot remove TopInstrument for pg_state_statements. I considerd other approaches, but all of them require node-dependent routines; for example, adding a function to walk through a plan tree and accumulate instrumentations in it at pg_stat_statements. But it is hard to be maintained on executor nodes changes. Are there any better idea? 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
