| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
| Date: | 2022-03-14 15:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | 180607.1647272303@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do find it odd that the proposed patch doesn't cause the *entire*
>> list to be skipped over. That seems like extra complexity and confusion
>> to no benefit.
> That's a bit surprising for me, I haven't even thought that folks could
> think this is an odd behaviour. As I've mentioned above, the original
> idea was to give some clues about what was inside the collapsed array,
> but if everyone finds it unnecessary I can of course change it.
But if what we're doing is skipping over an all-Consts list, then the
individual Consts would be elided from the pg_stat_statements entry
anyway, no? All that would remain is information about how many such
Consts there were, which is exactly the information you want to drop.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Borisov | 2022-03-14 15:43:40 | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2022-03-14 15:33:46 | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |