Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Date: 2012-10-03 18:04:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and,
> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be
> eliminated, practically, for-ever.  This way re-introductions between
> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a
> contiguously maintained statistic on a query.

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?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-10-03 18:54:27
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-10-03 17:57:47
Subject: Re: do we EXEC_BACKEND on Mac OS X?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group