Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb <mujeeb(dot)sk(at)zohocorp(dot)com>, ilyaevdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, mujeebskdev <mujeeb(dot)sk(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements
Date: 2025-05-19 16:11:37
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0ux+634SbsrJo3qjFKv-PfKxi4UTeQ3Me4xZVERrfURnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

FWIW, all the hash function SQL interfaces, \df hash*,
have this behavior in which the result is a signed (int/bigint),
but the internal representation of the hash is an unsigned (int/bigint).

I am not sure why a comment is needed specifically for pg_stat_statements

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2025-05-19 16:13:02 Re: strange perf regression with data checksums
Previous Message Jose Luis Tallon 2025-05-19 15:49:59 Re: Violation of principle that plan trees are read-only