| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling |
| Date: | 2023-08-18 00:18:19 |
| Message-ID: | ZN64y89ECQnbOd9+@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 08:49:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm. One issue with the patch is that we finish by considering
> DEALLOCATE ALL and DEALLOCATE $1 as the same things, compiling the
> same query IDs. The difference is made in the Nodes by assigning NULL
> to the name but we would now ignore it. Wouldn't it be better to add
> an extra field to DeallocateStmt to track separately the named
> deallocate queries and ALL in monitoring?
In short, I would propose something like that, with a new boolean
field in DeallocateStmt that's part of the jumbling.
Dagfinn, Julien, what do you think about the attached?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Track-DEALLOCATE-statements-in-pg_stat_activity.patch | text/x-diff | 6.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-08-18 00:47:38 | Re: pg_upgrade - typo in verbose log |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-08-17 23:54:19 | Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location |