From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com> |
Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Set query_id for query contained in utility statement |
Date: | 2024-10-18 06:21:03 |
Message-ID: | ZxH-T6SXZWwlgzUX@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 09:21:11AM +0200, Anthonin Bonnefoy wrote:
> I'm not sure about this approach. It moves the responsibility of
> tracking the location and length from the nested statement to the top
> level statement.
> - The location you added in ExplainStmt and CopyStmt has a different
> meaning from all others and tracks the nested location and not the
> location of the statement itself. This creates some inconsistencies.
> - The work will need to be done for all statements with nested
> queries: Prepare, Create table as, Declare Cursor, Materialised View.
> Whereas by tracking the location of PreparableStatements, there's no
> need for additional logic. For example, v8 0002 fixes the existing
> behaviour for Prepare statements thanks to SelectStmt's modifications.
Hmm. And isn't tracking this information at only the top-level going
to be a problem when dealing with multiple levels of nesting, when for
example these involve pl/sql or pl/pgSQL functions? How would this
work if we're dealing with multiple levels of Nodes?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-10-18 06:27:29 | Re: Set query_id for query contained in utility statement |
Previous Message | Seino Yuki | 2024-10-18 06:00:50 | Re: Add “FOR UPDATE NOWAIT” lock details to the log. |