| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2024-09-02 19:30:18 |
| Message-ID: | e3345264-8818-4b9c-aebf-43f1fa492bbb@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14/8/2024 23:05, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> I think the testing discussion should be moved to a different thread.
>> What do you think?
> See v4.
>
> 0001 deals with reporting queryId in exec_execute_message and
> exec_bind_message.
> 0002 deals with reporting queryId after a cache invalidation.
>
> There are no tests as this requires more discussion in a separate thread(?)
At first, these patches look good.
But I have a feeling of some mess here:
queryId should be initialised at the top-level query. At the same time,
the RevalidateCachedQuery routine can change this value in the case of
the query tree re-validation.
You can say that this routine can't be called from a non-top-level query
right now, except SPI. Yes, but what about extensions or future usage?
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-09-02 19:45:03 | thread-safety: strerror_r() |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2024-09-02 19:10:54 | Re: JIT: Remove some unnecessary instructions. |