| 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: | 2023-08-19 04:47:48 |
| Message-ID: | ZOBJdHWVoKhuYErB@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:31:03AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether we should
> distinguish DEALLOCATE ALL from DEALLOCATE <stmt> (call it +0.5), but
The difference looks important to me, especially for monitoring.
And pgbouncer may also use both of them, actually? (Somebody, please
correct me here if necessary.)
> this seems like a reasonable way to do it unless we want to invent a
> query_jumble_ignore_unless_null attribute (which seems like overkill for
> this one case).
I don't really want to have a NULL-based property for that :)
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-08-19 05:18:10 | Re: [17] Special search_path names "!pg_temp" and "!pg_catalog" |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-08-19 04:45:40 | Re: pg_upgrade fails with in-place tablespace |