Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements
Date: 2021-05-13 23:22:58
Message-ID: 20210513232258.GA20145@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 07:19:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 5/13/21 3:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-May-13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> >> Or just accept that this is a bit hokey with the 'auto' approach. I get
> >> Bruce has concerns about it but I'm not convinced that it's actually all
> >> that bad to go with that.
> > Yeah, I think the alleged confusion there is overstated.
> >
> > I'm happy to act as committer for that if he wants to step away from it.
> > I'm already used to being lapidated at every corner anyway.
> >
>
>
> Many thanks Alvaro, among other things for teaching me a new word.
>
> (delapidated) andrew

Yes, I had to look it up too. :-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-05-13 23:23:38 Re: Always bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-05-13 23:21:57 Re: Condition pushdown: why (=) is pushed down into join, but BETWEEN or >= is not?