Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:38:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Hm, yes, you're right. I guess I was thinking about this more like about
shortening some text with ellipsis, but indeed no actual Consts will end
up in the result anyway. Thanks for clarification, will modify the
patch!