From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 15:34:18 +0900
Message-ID: <154cacc0-9aa9-a37b-0a0f-17aa08ff706e@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJoeXcrwe1EDmqKT@paquier.xyz>
References: <2268611.1619458140@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20210426174331.GA19401@alvherre.pgsql>
<20210426181408.3j6kkzpxnadpwptv@alap3.anarazel.de>
<2295572.1619461260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20210426183745.4gd2s5qra6mlxfto@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20210427062504.ofz3rgedbrl5bep2@nol>
<YJoeXcrwe1EDmqKT@paquier.xyz>
On 2021/05/11 15:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about
>>>> the shared-library-name-with-fixed-function-name detail, but certainly
>>>> it seems to be useful to separate "I need a query-id" from the details
>>>> of the ID calculation.
>>>>
>>>> Rather than a GUC per se for the ID provider, maybe we could have a
>>>> function hook that defaults to pointing at the in-core computation,
>>>> and then a module wanting to override that just gets into the hook.
>>>
>>> I have a preference to determining the provider via GUC instead of a
>>> hook because it is both easier to introspect and easier to configure.
>
> So, this thread has died two weeks ago, and it is still an open item.
> Could it be possible to move to a resolution by beta1? The consensus
> I can get from the thread is that we should have a tri-value state to
> track an extra "auto" for the query ID computation, as proposed by
> Alvaro here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210426174331.GA19401@alvherre.pgsql
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, michael@paquier.xyz, rjuju123@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, sfrost@snowman.net, magnus@hagander.net, bruce@momjian.us, myon@debian.org, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements
In-Reply-To: <154cacc0-9aa9-a37b-0a0f-17aa08ff706e@oss.nttdata.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox