| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New function pg_stat_statements_reset_query() to reset statistics of a specific query |
| Date: | 2018-11-22 13:32:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20181122133236.zsmpomhpfbz7upza@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Nov-20, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > > 4. Single API with -1 as invalid value, treat NULL as no matching. (Only
> > problem
> > > with this approach is till now -1 is also a valid queryid, but setting
> > -1 as queryid
> > > needs to be avoided.
> >
> > Hmm, can we use 0 as default value without any such caveat?
>
> Yes, with strict and 0 as default value can work.
> If there is no problem, I can go ahead with the above changes?
I'm not sure I understand this proposal. Does this mean that passing -1
as databaseid / userid would match all databases/users, and passing 0 as
queryid would match all queries? This would be suprising, since OID is
unsigned so -1 is a possibly valid value ...
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-11-22 13:49:23 | Re: reg* checks in pg_upgrade are out of date |
| Previous Message | Pavel Raiskup | 2018-11-22 13:23:48 | Re: [PATCH] btree_gist: fix union implementation for variable length columns |