From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
        PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements
In-reply-to: <20210424170908.GM7629@momjian.us>
References: <35457b09-36f8-add3-1d07-6034fa585ca8@oss.nttdata.com>
 <20210424152220.GL7629@momjian.us>
 <CABUevEx4YQi42MwaMq3Bo09=mBqfjUqtkp5NUZpnQ0HdX+5+Hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210424170908.GM7629@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:09:08 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1709438.1619286231.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:43:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1709439.1619286231@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1709439.1619286231%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> That's a pretty weird API.  I think we just need people to turn it on
> like they are doing when the configure pg_stat_statements anyway. 
> pg_stat_statements already requires configuration anyway.

Agreed.  If pg_stat_statements were zero-configuration today then
this would be an annoying new burden, but it isn't.

I haven't looked, but did we put anything into pg_stat_statements
to make it easy to tell if you've messed up this setting?

			regards, tom lane