(2013/11/14 7:11), Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[email protected]> 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
