| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2012-10-03 18:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | 18167.1349287444@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)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. Is there any use-case where the
proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed
hash value?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-10-03 18:54:27 | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-10-03 17:57:47 | Re: do we EXEC_BACKEND on Mac OS X? |