Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:51:50PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:38:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> I do find it odd that the proposed patch doesn't cause the *entire*
> > > >> list to be skipped over. That seems like extra complexity and confusion
> > > >> to no benefit.
> > >
> > > > That's a bit surprising for me, I haven't even thought that folks could
> > > > think this is an odd behaviour. As I've mentioned above, the original
> > > > idea was to give some clues about what was inside the collapsed array,
> > > > but if everyone finds it unnecessary I can of course change it.
> > >
> > > But if what we're doing is skipping over an all-Consts list, then the
> > > individual Consts would be elided from the pg_stat_statements entry
> > > anyway, no? All that would remain is information about how many such
> > > Consts there were, which is exactly the information you want to drop.
> >
> > Hm, yes, you're right. I guess I was thinking about this more like about
> > shortening some text with ellipsis, but indeed no actual Consts will end
> > up in the result anyway. Thanks for clarification, will modify the
> > patch!
>
> Here is another iteration. Now the patch doesn't leave any trailing
> Consts in the normalized query, and contains more documentation. I hope
> it's getting better.

Hi,

Here is the rebased version, with no other changes.