Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements
Date: 2021-05-11 06:34:18
Message-ID: 154cacc0-9aa9-a37b-0a0f-17aa08ff706e@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021/05/11 15:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about
>>>> the shared-library-name-with-fixed-function-name detail, but certainly
>>>> it seems to be useful to separate "I need a query-id" from the details
>>>> of the ID calculation.
>>>>
>>>> Rather than a GUC per se for the ID provider, maybe we could have a
>>>> function hook that defaults to pointing at the in-core computation,
>>>> and then a module wanting to override that just gets into the hook.
>>>
>>> I have a preference to determining the provider via GUC instead of a
>>> hook because it is both easier to introspect and easier to configure.
>
> So, this thread has died two weeks ago, and it is still an open item.
> Could it be possible to move to a resolution by beta1? The consensus
> I can get from the thread is that we should have a tri-value state to
> track an extra "auto" for the query ID computation, as proposed by
> Alvaro here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210426174331.GA19401@alvherre.pgsql

+1

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-05-11 06:58:17 RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-05-11 06:04:13 Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements