From: | David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com> |
Subject: | Regression in statement locations |
Date: | 2025-05-19 14:31:24 |
Message-ID: | 844a3b38-bbf1-4fb2-9fd6-f58c35c09917@pgbackrest.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hackers,
499edb0 introduced more precise locations for nested statements. In
general it works quite well and has made the pgAudit output much more
readable -- so kudos for that.
However, I have noticed one regression in the pgAudit tests. We have
this somewhat odd statement intentionally crafted for catch issues with
logging:
--
-- Test obfuscated dynamic sql for clean logging
DO $$
DECLARE
table_name TEXT = 'do_table';
BEGIN
EXECUTE E'\t\n\r CREATE TABLE ' || table_name || E' ("weird name"
INT)\t\n\r ; DROP table ' || table_name;
END $$;
In PG17 pgAudit logs the expected output:
NOTICE: AUDIT: SESSION,35,2,DDL,CREATE
TABLE,TABLE,public.do_table,"CREATE TABLE do_table (""weird name""
INT)",<none>
NOTICE: AUDIT: SESSION,35,3,DDL,DROP TABLE,TABLE,public.do_table,DROP
table do_table,<none>
But in PG18 we now get:
NOTICE: AUDIT: SESSION,35,2,DDL,CREATE
TABLE,TABLE,public.do_table,"CREATE TABLE do_table (""weird name""
INT)",<none>
NOTICE: AUDIT: SESSION,35,3,DDL,DROP
TABLE,TABLE,public.do_table,"CREATE TABLE do_table (""weird name"" INT)
; DROP table do_table",<none>
The create table statement is fine but the drop table statement has
create table glued to it. I tried removing the extra quotes, whitespace,
etc. from our test and the result is the same.
I had a look through 499edb0 and did not see anything obvious. It is
possible that I am missing a required change on my side but since the
commit did not make any code changes to pg_stat_statements I do not
think so. It is also possible that the regression is not coming from
499edb0 but I do not see another obvious candidate.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
-David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-05-19 14:35:26 | Re: Violation of principle that plan trees are read-only |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-05-19 14:26:37 | Re: [PoC] XMLCast (SQL/XML X025) |