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I believe that proposal was withdrawn.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
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 |