| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, sirisha chamarthi <sirichamarthi22(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAIT FOR command should do some query jumbling |
| Date: | 2026-09-25 16:48:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAN12+YJxW=g8x_6o7Fnhx9ALo2BnhN7+6M1NmsnA-7_qum2Bkw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alexander,
> Two things today: waits differing only in the timeout get an entry
> each,
I agree this is not ideal, and it's the point I raised earlier.
> and so does the same wait with its options written in another
> order.
I am not sure we should add the additional complexity in the custom
jumble to deal with this. I don't anticipate this will be a problem in
the real world. Scripts and drivers will use the same order. Also we
don't really guarantee that in other commands:
```
VACUUM (ANALYZE, VERBOSE) and VACUUM (VERBOSE, ANALYZE)
```
give different queryIds, and the same is true of COPY and every other
command taking an option list.
If we want option order to not affect the queryId, I think we should
teach jumbling to do this for all commands that take options; the
consumers of utility_option_list and copy_generic_opt_list, and
probably some other places.
So my preference is to deal with the TIMEOUT jumbling only, and
keep the ordering aspect out of this for now.
Maybe others have a different opinion.
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Burd | 2026-09-25 17:09:01 | Re: Add counted_by attribute |
| Previous Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-09-25 16:46:46 | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT returns rows hidden by a view |