Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do find it odd that the proposed patch doesn't cause the *entire*
>> list to be skipped over.  That seems like extra complexity and confusion
>> to no benefit.

> That's a bit surprising for me, I haven't even thought that folks could
> think this is an odd behaviour. As I've mentioned above, the original
> idea was to give some clues about what was inside the collapsed array,
> but if everyone finds it unnecessary I can of course change it.

But if what we're doing is skipping over an all-Consts list, then the
individual Consts would be elided from the pg_stat_statements entry
anyway, no?  All that would remain is information about how many such
Consts there were, which is exactly the information you want to drop.

            regards, tom lane