From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, kaido vaikla <kaido(dot)vaikla(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: query_id, pg_stat_activity, extended query protocol |
Date: | 2024-09-09 23:20:01 |
Message-ID: | 465EECA3-D98C-4E46-BBDB-4D057617DD89@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry for the late reply on this thread.
On 14/8/2024 23:05, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> There are no tests as this requires more discussion in a separate thread(?)
> Unfortunately, TAP tests don't allow us to keep a connection and
> manually permutate the order of queries sent to different connections.
> But isolation tests are designed to do so. Of course, they aren't the
> best if you need to compare values produced by various queries but see a
> clumsy sketch doing that in the attachment.
It would be nice to use isolation tests as you have, those type of tests
don't support psql meta-commands. We need \parse, \bind, \bind_named
to test queryId for queries issued through extended query protocol.
With TAP tests we can use query_until in BackgroundPsql to have one
connection issue a command and another connection track the # of distinct
queryIds expected. See the 007_query_id.pl of an example TAP test that
could be added under test_misc.
An INJECTION_POINT can also be added right before we call pgstat_report_query_id
in plancache.c. This will allow us to test when we expect the queryId to
change after a cache revalidation. Thoughts?
> Also, while writing the test, I found out that now, JumbleQuery takes
> into account constants of the A_Const node, and calls of the same
> prepared statement with different parameters generate different
> query_id. Is it a reason to introduce JumbleQuery options and allow
> different logic of queryid generation?
Can you start a new thread for this prepared statement scenario?
--
Sami
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
007_query_id.pl | text/x-perl-script | 2.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-09-09 23:33:26 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |
Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-09-09 22:54:20 | Re: Opinion poll: Sending an automated email to a thread when it gets added to the commitfest |