| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
| Date: | 2017-09-30 15:41:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzm-+OfCp2Fycd4ZSVYEw_U0HiW4BQ1EeDsm-H4mf5LS-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Isn't that already true in the case of queryId? I've never heard any
> complaints about collisions. Most people don't change
> pg_stat_statements.max, so the probability of a collision is more like
> 1%. And, that's the probability of *any* collision, not the
> probability of a collision that the user actually cares about. The
> majority of entries in pg_stat_statements among those ten thousand
> will not be interesting.
Correction: ten thousand is an example value of pg_stat_statements.max
in the docs, not the default value. The default is five thousand.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-30 15:50:08 | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-30 15:39:01 | Re: 64-bit queryId? |