| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel(dot)trukhanov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
| Date: | 2023-02-05 16:02:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2420105.1675612952@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm thinking about this in the following way: the core jumbling logic is
> responsible for deriving locations based on the input expressions; in
> the case of merging we produce less locations; pgss have to represent
> the result only using locations and has to be able to differentiate
> simple locations and locations after merging.
Uh ... why? ISTM you're just going to elide all inside the IN,
so why do you need more than a start and stop position?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-05 16:06:13 | Re: File descriptors in exec'd subprocesses |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-05 14:50:50 | Re: [PATCH] Compression dictionaries for JSONB |