| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Stability of queryid in minor versions |
| Date: | 2024-04-16 02:04:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqFxgV-LnaYnim-K6L3w7TM=Gy9Lg9-iGzzAZqtjpnRzA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 12:10, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Not sure that this is an improvement in clarity. There are a few
> bullet points that treat about the instability of the query ID, and
> your patch is now mixing the query ID being different for two
> mostly-identical queries on the same host with larger conditions like
> the environment involved. Perhaps it would be better to move the last
> sentence of the first <para> ("Furthermore, it is not safe..") with
> the part you are adding about replication in this paragraph.
Yeah, I think this is better. I think the attached is what you mean.
It makes sense to talk about the hashing variations closer to the
object identifier part.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| doc_clarify_queryid_stability_v3.patch | text/plain | 2.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2024-04-16 02:12:10 | Re: pg_combinebackup fails on file named INCREMENTAL.* |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-04-16 01:50:14 | Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD |