| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2021-05-11 07:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20210511074947.jityqwpe2acfsvrq@nol |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:43:25AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> 30 second review -- wouldn't it be cleaner to keep a separate boolean
> telling the backend "include it or not", which is set to true/false in
> the guc assign hook and can then be flipped from false->true in
> queryIdWanted()? (I'd suggest a more verbose name for that function
> btw, something like requestQueryIdGeneration() or so).
>
> (Again, just the 30 second review between meetings, so maybe I'm completely off)
It it surely would, but then that variable would need to be explicitly handled
as it wouldn't be automatically inherited on Windows and EXEC_BACKEND right?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-05-11 07:50:46 | Re: GetSubscriptionRelations declares too many scan keys |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2021-05-11 07:49:13 | Re: SQL-standard function body |