Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
Date: 2012-03-29 16:12:10
Message-ID: 4676.1333037530@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What I'm imagining is that instead of just having a global for
> nested_level, you'd have a global variable pointing to a linked list.

This is more or less what I have in mind, too, except I do not believe
that a mere boolean flag is sufficient to tell the difference between
an executor call that you want to suppress logging for and one that
you do not. You need some more positive way of identifying the target
statement than that, and what I propose that be is the statement's query
string.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-03-29 16:17:43 Re: Command Triggers patch v18
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-03-29 16:07:19 Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)