Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHGQGwHaRrSr1ZEiAJRNH07Afa0A81H9opbF99huJtwmXsYa_Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Sameer Thakur <samthakur74@gmail.com> wrote: >> Please find v10 of patch attached. This patch addresses following >> review comments > > I've cleaned this up - revision attached - and marked it "ready for committer". > > I decided that queryid should be of type oid, not bigint. This is > arguably a slight abuse of notation, but since ultimately Oids are > just abstract object identifiers (so say the docs), but also because > there is no other convenient, minimal way of representing unsigned > 32-bit integers in the view that I'm aware of, I'm inclined to think > that it's appropriate. There seems to be no problem even if we use bigint as the type of unsigned 32-bit integer like queryid. For example, txid_current() returns the transaction ID, i.e., unsigned 32-bit integer, as bigint. Could you tell me what the problem is when using bigint for queryid? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: