Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeXAu-0003mb-AQ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:40:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeXAt-0004px-S1 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:40:39 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeXAs-0004pA-LT for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:40:38 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeXAl-0007Od-1I for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:40:38 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8MNePi0015899; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:40:25 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Jim Nasby , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements In-reply-to: References: <5601D354.5000703@BlueTreble.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:58:51 -0700" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:40:25 -0400 Message-ID: <15898.1442965225@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Peter Geoghegan writes: > I'm not opposed to this basic idea, but I think the message should be > reworded, and that the presence of two separate ereport() call sites > like the above is totally unnecessary. The existing MaxAllocSize check > is just defensive; no user-visible distinction needs to be made. I wonder whether the real problem here is failure to truncate statement texts to something sane. Do we really need to record the whole text of multi-megabyte statements? Especially if doing so could render the entire feature nonfunctional? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers