| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, kaido vaikla <kaido(dot)vaikla(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: query_id, pg_stat_activity, extended query protocol |
| Date: | 2024-09-11 03:06:30 |
| Message-ID: | ZuEJNvXVbHDUQCas@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 06:20:01PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> On 14/8/2024 23:05, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> Also, while writing the test, I found out that now, JumbleQuery takes
>> into account constants of the A_Const node, and calls of the same
>> prepared statement with different parameters generate different
>> query_id. Is it a reason to introduce JumbleQuery options and allow
>> different logic of queryid generation?
>
> Can you start a new thread for this prepared statement scenario?
Yes, please, this makes the thread rather confusing by adding
different problems into the mix that require different analysis and
actions. Let's only focus on the issue that the query ID reporting
in pg_stat_activity is missing for the extended query protocol here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-09-11 03:11:35 | Re: Disallow altering invalidated replication slots |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-09-11 03:02:48 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |