On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> writes: >>> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but >>> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and, >>> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be >>> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between >>> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a >>> contiguously maintained statistic on a query. >> >> This argument seems sensible to me. > > Daniel: Could you please submit the patch that you were working on > that does this to the next commitfest?
Yes. Sorry I haven't done that already. I'll clean it up and send it out Real Soon Now, thanks for the expression of interest. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
