Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 154cacc0-9aa9-a37b-0a0f-17aa08ff706e@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/05/11 15:04, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about >>>> the shared-library-name-with-fixed-function-name detail, but certainly >>>> it seems to be useful to separate "I need a query-id" from the details >>>> of the ID calculation. >>>> >>>> Rather than a GUC per se for the ID provider, maybe we could have a >>>> function hook that defaults to pointing at the in-core computation, >>>> and then a module wanting to override that just gets into the hook. >>> >>> I have a preference to determining the provider via GUC instead of a >>> hook because it is both easier to introspect and easier to configure. > > So, this thread has died two weeks ago, and it is still an open item. > Could it be possible to move to a resolution by beta1? The consensus > I can get from the thread is that we should have a tri-value state to > track an extra "auto" for the query ID computation, as proposed by > Alvaro here: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210426174331.GA19401@alvherre.pgsql +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: