| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(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: | 2024-09-18 00:38:32 |
| Message-ID: | ZuohCMDVKrwtzg6i@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 06:39:17PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> FWIW, I do like the INJECTION_POINT idea and actually mentioned something
> similar up the thread [1] for the revalidate cache case, but I can see it being applied
> to all the other places we expect the queryId to be set.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/465EECA3-D98C-4E46-BBDB-4D057617DD89%40gmail.com
FWIW, I was thinking about something like what has been done in
indexcmds.c for 5bbdfa8a18dc as the query ID value is not predictible
across releases, but we could see whether it is set or not.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-09-18 00:54:59 | Re: Detailed release notes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-18 00:22:41 | Re: Detailed release notes |