| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | marcus(dot)kempe(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17668: Query normalization generates multiple queryId:s for calls to the same procedure |
| Date: | 2022-10-28 01:28:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20221028012841.iuvjgekufwwlywoa@jrouhaud |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 02:28:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:49:18PM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
> >> I would have expected both calls to be normalized and fingerprinted to one
> >> and the same queryId.
>
> > Agreed, and that's actually a known problem that is currently being worked on.
> > You can look at
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/36e5bffe-e989-194f-85c8-06e7bc88e6f7%40amazon.com
> > for details about the discussion and in-progress fix.
>
> Um ... that seems unrelated. AFAICS the OP is complaining about
> the fact that '42'::int4::int8 is not identical to '42'::int8.
> Well, they're not. I seriously doubt that we would or should
> consider trying to get queryjumble to mask that.
Oh wow I totally misread the bug report, sorry about that. A good night sleep
and a coffee later I see what it's about, and I agree that we shouldn't try to
mask that even if it might seem surprising.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcus Kempe | 2022-10-28 04:48:58 | Re: BUG #17668: Query normalization generates multiple queryId:s for calls to the same procedure |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-10-27 19:45:14 | BUG #17669: Invalid TOAST pointer in PL/pgSQL variable |