From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assert in pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2015-08-10 04:03:20 |
Message-ID: | CAA8soze0Syf-1zPB9Y-txzFwH7ZO32ZaaEQ3y1p_bYcWKhyucw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-08-10 2:23 GMT+09:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not too excited about supporting the use case where there are two
>> people using queryId but it just so happens that they always set
>> exactly the same value. That seems like a weird setup. Wouldn't that
>> mean both modules were applying the same jumble algorithm, and
>> therefore you're doing the work of computing the jumble twice per
>> query?
>
> Not only that, but you'd need to keep the two modules in sync, which
> would be one of the greatest recipes for bugs we've thought of yet.
>
> If there's actually a use case for that sort of thing, I would vote
> for moving the jumble-calculation code into core and making both of
> the interested extensions do
>
> /* Calculate query hash if it's not been done yet */
> if (query->queryId == 0)
> calculate_query_hash(query);
I vote for this too.
Jumble-calculation is the smartest way to identify query groups,
so several modules can take advantages of it if in the core.
Regards,
--
Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2015-08-10 04:04:33 | Re: [patch] A \pivot command for psql |
Previous Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2015-08-10 03:55:36 | Re: Assert in pg_stat_statements |