| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sutou Kouhei <kou(at)clear-code(dot)com> |
| Cc: | yasuo(dot)honda(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com, geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
| Date: | 2024-05-12 11:38:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20240512113855.2ghd6qhgnddwhfci@erthalion.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:18:15AM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:09:29PM +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I'm not familiar with this code base but I've
> > reviewed these patches because I'm interested in this
> > feature too.
>
> Thanks for the review! The commentaries for the first patch make sense
> to me, will apply.
Here is the new version. It turned out you were right about memory for
the normalized query, if the number of constants goes close to INT_MAX,
there were indeed not enough allocated. I've added a fix for this on top
of the applied changes, and also improved readability for
pg_stat_statements part.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v20-0001-Prevent-jumbling-of-every-element-in-ArrayExpr.patch | text/x-diff | 29.1 KB |
| v20-0002-Reusable-decimalLength-functions.patch | text/x-diff | 4.7 KB |
| v20-0003-Merge-constants-in-ArrayExpr-into-groups.patch | text/x-diff | 19.4 KB |
| v20-0004-Introduce-query_id_const_merge_threshold.patch | text/x-diff | 15.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-05-12 11:46:29 | Re: Add TAP tests for backtrace functionality (was Re: Add test module for verifying backtrace functionality) |
| Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-05-12 11:00:00 | Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop? |