Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZR0WejLHRJXx8YH29GjeKOq2tZRzDTmptmm0ymAPPKgZg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I am very wary of implementing special-case logic here even though I > know it could be useful to some people, simply because I fear that > there could be a near-infinite variety of situations where, in a > particular environment, a particular distinction isn't important. I am too, which is why I asked. We're already in the business of deciding what is and isn't essential to a query in this way. For example, we already determine that Var.varcollid shouldn't appear in a query jumble - there is no better reason for that then "it would hurt more than it helped", even though it's possible that someone could care about such a distinction. Now, I have no intention of avoiding the issue with a relativistic argument ("who is to say what the essential nature of a query is anyway?"), but I know doctrinarianism isn't helpful either. I do think I know who should determine what is the essential nature of a query for fingerprinting purposes: we should. We should pick the scheme that is most widely useful, while weighing the worst case. I'm not asserting that this is closer to that, but it might be. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: