| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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: | 2025-05-20 05:51:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvoQA6s9oKCfoXotwOEYzxmh7MxFLFq5zYjebhBEvkhuVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 17:09, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 08:43:25PM -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> > Yeah, +1 to making this consistent across both query ID and the new plan
> > ID, and changing both to int64 internally seems best.
>
> Any thoughts from others? I'm OK to take the extra step of switching
> both fields on HEAD and write a patch for that, relying on what David
> has sent as a first step towards that.
Given the planId stuff is new and has the same issue, I think that
pushes me towards thinking now is better than later for fixing both.
I'm happy to adjust my patch unless you've started working on it already.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2025-05-20 06:12:13 | Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-05-20 05:50:07 | Re: wrong query results on bf leafhopper |