Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Date: 2012-10-10 10:54:54
Message-ID: CAEYLb_VCVOH9=TB0nH3XOQQ32jLijvTYY7beHMjuh+cK1oH_Hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3 October 2012 19:54, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> This argument seems sensible to me. Is there any use-case where the
>> proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed
>> hash value?
>
> Yes. The hash could be used to aggregate query execution costs across
> entire WAL-based replication clusters. I'm not opposed to Daniel's
> suggestion, though.

Could we please try and reach a consensus here? If you're still dead
set against exposing the hash value, I think that just following what
Daniel has suggested is a fair compromise.

--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2012-10-10 11:05:55 Re: BUG #6510: A simple prompt is displayed using wrong charset
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-10-10 10:41:01 Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM