From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [survey] New "Stable" QueryId based on normalized query text |
Date: | 2019-04-09 21:26:13 |
Message-ID: | 20190409212613.udbyn2ezioz2clwn@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 03:19:58PM -0700, legrand legrand wrote:
> > The rest of thread raise quite a lot of concerns about the semantics,
> > the cost and the correctness of this patch. After 5 minutes checking,
> > it wouldn't suits your need if you use custom functions, custom types,
> > custom operators (say using intarray extension) or if your tables
> > don't have columns in the same order in every environment. And there
> > are probably other caveats that I didn't see;
>
> Yes I know,
> It would have to be extended at less at functions, types, operators ...
> names
> and a guc pg_stat_statements.queryid_based= 'names' (default being 'oids')
>
> and with a second guc ('fullyqualifed' ?)
> sould include tables, functions, types, operators ... namespaces
>
> let "users" specify their needs, we will see ;o)
Why can't we just explose the hash computation as an SQL function and
let people call it with pg_stat_activity.query or wherever they want the
value? We can install multiple functions if needed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-04-09 21:28:38 | Re: block-level incremental backup |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-09 21:15:43 | Re: Zedstore - compressed in-core columnar storage |