From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |
Date: | 2013-12-10 21:33:48 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZR0WejLHRJXx8YH29GjeKOq2tZRzDTmptmm0ymAPPKgZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I am very wary of implementing special-case logic here even though I
> know it could be useful to some people, simply because I fear that
> there could be a near-infinite variety of situations where, in a
> particular environment, a particular distinction isn't important.
I am too, which is why I asked.
We're already in the business of deciding what is and isn't essential
to a query in this way. For example, we already determine that
Var.varcollid shouldn't appear in a query jumble - there is no better
reason for that then "it would hurt more than it helped", even though
it's possible that someone could care about such a distinction. Now, I
have no intention of avoiding the issue with a relativistic argument
("who is to say what the essential nature of a query is anyway?"), but
I know doctrinarianism isn't helpful either.
I do think I know who should determine what is the essential nature of
a query for fingerprinting purposes: we should. We should pick the
scheme that is most widely useful, while weighing the worst case. I'm
not asserting that this is closer to that, but it might be.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-10 21:41:45 | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-12-10 21:33:29 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |