| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(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 06:12:13 |
| Message-ID: | aCwdPY8WF36MjjEz@jrouhaud |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 02:09:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier 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.
I don't think it was discussed, but why not go the other way, keep everything
as uint64 and expose an uint64 datatype at the SQL level instead? That's
something I actually want pretty often so I would be happy to have that
natively, whether it's called bigoid, oid8 or anything else. That's probably
too late for pg18 though.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-05-20 06:27:30 | Re: [PATCH] Allow parallelism for plpgsql return expression after commit 556f7b7 |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-05-20 05:51:51 | Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements |