From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues with combined queries |
Date: | 2017-01-26 13:42:17 |
Message-ID: | 27543.1485438137@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> One suggestion: it's currently non-obvious that ProcessUtility_hook
> gets called with the full text of all parts of a multi-statement.
OK, we can improve that ...
> The same query string may be passed to multiple invocations of ProcessUtility
> if a utility statement in turn invokes other utility statements, or if the
> user supplied a query string containing multiple semicolon-separated
> statements in a single protocol message. It is also possible for the query
> text to contain other non-utility-statement text like comments, empty
> statements, and plannable statements. Callers that use the queryString
> should use pstmt->stmt_location and pstmt->stmt_len to extract the text for
> the statement of interest and should guard against re-entrant invocation.
Not sure about the reference to re-entrancy. It's not especially relevant
to query texts AFAICS, and wouldn't a utility statement know darn well if
it was doing something that could end up invoking another instance of
itself?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-26 13:50:27 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |
Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2017-01-26 13:08:24 | Re: Microvacuum support for Hash Index |