Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> writes:
> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and,
> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be
> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between
> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a
> contiguously maintained statistic on a query.
This argument seems sensible to me. Is there any use-case where the
proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed
hash value?
regards, tom lane