Re: Review of: pg_stat_statements with query tree normalization
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review of: pg_stat_statements with query tree normalization |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F14B61E.9070802@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review of: pg_stat_statements with query tree normalization (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review of: pg_stat_statements with query tree normalization
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/16/2012 06:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I wonder if it would make sense to split out those changes from the > patch, including a one-member struct definition to the lexer source, > which could presumably be applied in advance of the rest of the patch. > That way, if other parts of the main patch are contentious, the tree > doesn't drift under you. (Or rather, it still drifts, but you no longer > care because your bits are already in.) The way this was packaged up was for easier reviewer consumption, just pull down the whole thing and run with it. I was already thinking that if we've cleared the basics with a positive review and are moving more toward commit, it would be better to have it split into three pieces: -Core parsing changes -pg_stat_statements changes -Test programs And then work through those in that order. Whether or not the test programs even go into core as contrib code is a useful open question. While Peter had a version of this that worked completely within the boundaries of an extension, no one was really happy with that. At a minimum the .length changes really need to land in 9.2 to enable this feature to work well. As Daniel noted, it's a lot of code changes, but not a lot of code complexity. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: