From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sameer Thakur <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
Date: | 2013-12-07 17:08:03 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEUOuwuZTwbFdc=Yu-4hJXSN3ny0o-vYec_YycbKc8B2Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> There seems to be no problem even if we use bigint as the type of
>>> unsigned 32-bit integer like queryid. For example, txid_current()
>>> returns the transaction ID, i.e., unsigned 32-bit integer, as bigint.
>>> Could you tell me what the problem is when using bigint for queryid?
>>
>> We're talking about the output of some view, right, not internal storage?
>> +1 for using bigint for that. Using OID is definitely an abuse, because
>> the value *isn't* an OID. And besides, what if we someday decide we need
>> 64-bit keys not 32-bit?
>
> Fair enough. I was concerned about the cost of external storage of
> 64-bit integers (unlike query text, they might have to be stored many
> times for many distinct intervals or something like that), but in
> hindsight that was fairly miserly of me.
>
> Attached revision displays signed 64-bit integers instead.
Thanks! Looks good to me. Committed!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-12-07 17:26:12 | Re: Storing pg_stat_statements query texts externally, pg_stat_statements in core |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2013-12-07 16:33:16 | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |