public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
To: Andrey V. Lepikhov <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Query IDs for a rewritten parse tree
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:51:56 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:33:22AM +0500, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
> On 1/9/22 5:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The idea I'd been vaguely thinking about is to allow attaching a list
> > of query-hash nodes to a Query, where each node would contain a "tag"
> > identifying the specific hash calculation method, and also the value
> > of the query's hash calculated according to that method.  We could
> > probably get away with saying that all such hash values must be uint64.
> > The main difference from your function-OID idea, I think, is that
> > I'm envisioning the tags as being small integers with well-known
> > values, similarly to the way we manage stakind values in pg_statistic.
> > In this way, an extension that wants a hash that the core knows how
> > to calculate doesn't need its own copy of the code, and similarly
> > one extension could publish a calculation method for use by other
> > extensions.
>
> To move forward, I have made a patch that implements this idea (see
> attachment). It is a POC, but passes all regression tests.

Thanks. Couple of comments off the top of my head:

> Registration of an queryId generator implemented by analogy with extensible
> methods machinery.

Why not more like suggested with stakind and slots in some data
structure? All of those generators have to be iterated anyway, so not
sure if a hash table makes sense.

> Also, I switched queryId to int64 type and renamed to
> 'label'.

A name with "id" in it would be better I believe. Label could be think
of as "the query belongs to a certain category", while the purpose is
identification.

> 2. We need a custom queryId, that is based on a generated queryId (according
> to the logic of pg_stat_statements).

Could you clarify?

> 4. We should reserve position of default in-core generator

From the discussion above I was under the impression that the core
generator should be distinguished by a predefined kind.

> 5. We should add an EXPLAIN hook, to allow an extension to print this custom
> queryId.

Why? It would make sense if custom generation code will be generating
some complex structure, but the queryId itself is still a hash.

view thread (14+ messages)

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Multiple Query IDs for a rewritten parse tree
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox