Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:36:48 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, 
	Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>, 
	Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, yasuo.honda@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, smithpb2250@gmail.com, 
	vignesh21@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, nathandbossart@gmail.com, 
	stark.cfm@gmail.com, geidav.pg@gmail.com, marcos@f10.com.br, robertmhaas@gmail.com, 
	david@pgmasters.net, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pavel.trukhanov@gmail.com, 
	Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Message-ID: <202502140936.lni5gtrycnzf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Z68MtDCGVZi-Qqry@jrouhaud>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202502140936.lni5gtrycnzf%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Feb-14, Julien Rouhaud wrote:

> Since the merging is a yes/no option (I think there used to be some discussions
> about having a threshold or some other fancy modes), maybe you could instead
> differentiate the merged version by have 2 constants rather than this "..." or
> something like that?

Maybe the representation can be "($1 /*, ... */)" so that it's obvious
that the array extends beyond the first element but is still
syntactically valid.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"In Europe they call me Niklaus Wirth; in the US they call me Nickel's worth.
 That's because in Europe they call me by name, and in the US by value!"