| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
| Date: | 2017-10-02 15:02:48 |
| Message-ID: | 03aedcb2-1331-42d1-797c-e35c656918de@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/01/2017 04:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> Well these kinds of monitoring systems tend to be used by operations
>> people who are a lot more practical and a lot less worried about
>> theoretical concerns like that.
>
> +1, well said.
>
>> In context the point was merely that the default
>> pg_stat_statements.max of 5000 isn't sufficient to argue that 32-bit
>> values are enough. It wouldn't be hard for there to be 64k different
>> queries over time and across all the databases in a fleet and at that
>> point it becomes likely there'll be a 32-bit collision.
>
> Yeah.
>
> I think Alexander Korotkov's points are quite good, too.
>
+1 to both of these as well.
jD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-02 15:05:46 | Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN() |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-10-02 15:01:30 | Re: Logging idle checkpoints |