| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, 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>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2025-05-29 04:53:07 |
| Message-ID: | aDfoMw7Ik4_XCsPQ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:01:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have added an open item about the plan ID part as it applies to v18,
> adding the RMT in CC to get an opinion. If we cannot get a consensus
> on all that, letting things as they are is still logically correct,
> even with the -Wwarnings-format-signedness argument which is not
> included by default currently.
>
> Has somebody an opinion to offer?
It has been one week since this last update, and there has been
nothing except the sound of cicadas. IMO, I think that we should just
pull the switch and make both of these IDs signed on HEAD, taking case
of the potential signedness warning issues.
Now, I don't really want to take a leap of faith without the RMT being
OK with that now that we are in beta1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-05-29 05:11:40 | backend_xmin is null in pg_stat_replication, although repl. slot change it |
| Previous Message | Tender Wang | 2025-05-29 04:35:37 | Re: Foreign key validation failure in 18beta1 |