Re: Storing pg_stat_statements query texts externally, pg_stat_statements in core

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Storing pg_stat_statements query texts externally, pg_stat_statements in core
Date: 2014-01-20 21:08:52
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSX0GroNCKvgnxVaLxMqaWt8NTeDfZDZD_y_zU5XzeVjw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I see this is marked as ready for committer. Where does it stand in
> relation to the other long-running thread about "calls under-estimation
> propagation"? I was surprised to find that there isn't any CommitFest
> entry linked to that thread, so I'm wondering if that proposal is
> abandoned or what. If it's not, is committing this going to blow up
> that patch?

I believe that proposal was withdrawn. I think the conclusion there
was that we should just expose queryid and be done with it. In a way,
exposing the queryid enabled this work, because it provides an
identifier that can be used instead of sending large query texts each
call.

> BTW, I'm also thinking that the "detected_version" kluge is about ready
> to collapse of its own weight, or at least is clearly going to break in
> future. What we need to do is embed the API version in the C name of the
> pg_stat_statements function instead.

I agree that it isn't scalable.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-01-20 21:24:30 Closing commitfest 2013-11
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-01-20 20:55:40 Re: Storing pg_stat_statements query texts externally, pg_stat_statements in core