| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 23:02:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZR+_RwYPGHqV4Dba+xn98-ayCrHmDKVo3nvoE-PahbcLA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> You might get lucky and have this exact case, and be able to
> leverage the knowledge that the 2 constants in the ArrayExpr must be
> the latter and 1 must be the former, but experience suggests very
> probably not.
When things get this bad, you'd probably be better off adding a
tautology to the query with the problematic constants (or, dare I say,
installing pg_stat_plans). That seems weird, but then if you were able
to recognize the case you described without one it's nothing more than
dumb luck.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-12-10 23:03:49 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-10 22:55:38 | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |