Thread

Commits

  1. doc: align column order with pg_stat_statements view

  1. Fix documentation for pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter

    Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> — 2023-11-11T09:26:47Z

    Hi,
    
    I was adding support for the new pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter in PoWA
    when I realized that those were added after jit_generation_time in the
    documentation while they're actually at the end of the view.  I'm adding Daniel
    in Cc as the committer of the original patch.
    
    It looks like there was some will to put them earlier in the view too, but
    since it would require some additional tests in the SRF they probably just
    ended up at the end of the view while still being earlier in the struct.
    Anyway, it's not a big problem but all other fields are documented in the
    correct position so let's be consistent.
    
    Trivial patch attached.
    
  2. Re: Fix documentation for pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2023-11-15T12:53:13Z

    > On 11 Nov 2023, at 10:26, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
    
    > I was adding support for the new pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter in PoWA
    > when I realized that those were added after jit_generation_time in the
    > documentation while they're actually at the end of the view.
    
    Nice catch, that was indeed an omission in the original commit.  Thanks for the
    patch, I'll apply that shortly.
    
    --
    Daniel Gustafsson
    
    
    
    
    
  3. Re: Fix documentation for pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter

    Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> — 2023-11-15T15:03:23Z

    On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 01:53:13PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
    > > On 11 Nov 2023, at 10:26, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I was adding support for the new pg_stat_statements JIT deform_counter in PoWA
    > > when I realized that those were added after jit_generation_time in the
    > > documentation while they're actually at the end of the view.
    >
    > Nice catch, that was indeed an omission in the original commit.  Thanks for the
    > patch, I'll apply that shortly.
    
    Thanks!