(2013/11/14 7:11), Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Hmm, now if we had portable atomic addition, so that we could spare the
spinlock ...
And adding a histogram or
min/max for something like execution time isn't an approach that can
be made to work for every existing cost tracked by pg_stat_statements.
So, taking all that into consideration, I'm afraid this patch gets a
-1 from me.
It is confirmation just to make sure, does "this patch" mean my patch? I agree
with you about not adding another lock implementation. It will becomes overhead.
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
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
