From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, yasuo(dot)honda(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com, geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com, Sutou Kouhei <kou(at)clear-code(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
Date: | 2025-03-03 11:56:24 |
Message-ID: | 202503031156.uoruitdjdwfr@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Feb-18, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > It's not a question about whether it's possible to implement this,
> > but about whether it makes sense. In case of plain constants it's
> > straightforward -- they will not change anything meaningfully and
> > hence could be squashed from the query. Now for a function, that
> > might return different values for the same set of constant
> > arguments, it's much less obvious and omitting such expressions
> > might have unexpected consequences.
>
> query jumbling should not care about the behavior of the function. If
> we take a regular call to a volatile function, we will generate the
> same queryId for every call regardless of the input to the function.
> Why does the in-list case need to care about the volatility of the
> function?
I feel quite insecure about this idea TBH. At least with immutable
functions I don't expect the system to behave wildly different than with
actual constants. What non-immutable functions do you have in mind that
would be useful to fold as if they were constants in the IN list in such
a query?
In the meantime, here's v28 which is Dmitry's v27 plus pgindent. No
other changes. Dmitry, were you planning to submit a new version?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
(Hobbes)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v28-0001-Prevent-jumbling-of-every-element-in-ArrayExpr.patch | text/x-diff | 46.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-03-03 12:29:15 | RE: Adding a '--clean-publisher-objects' option to 'pg_createsubscriber' utility. |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-03-03 11:54:39 | Re: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits |