Subject: Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
To: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: "imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com" <imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com>,
 legrand legrand <legrand_legrand@hotmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <OSBPR01MB461661BDBBF8C5CB477AE47494FD0@OSBPR01MB4616.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOBaU_Y1M7TFHDWV1wkQpES3qsK-BatsizPjxur1BMBoVE095Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMSG9HJQr=H8doWJOp=wqyKbVqxMLkk_Qu2KfpmkKvS-Xn7qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOBaU_YekXNsQ819w=eBTM_aQ+BYPcVWLX0sDO-5xRNhqipbRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <OSAPR01MB46099E7D03547A2A7292716494FA0@OSAPR01MB4609.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <1584180240397-0.post@n3.nabble.com> <20200314172733.mg7qpyumlyythm25@nol>
 <TY2PR01MB46172D9531F2D3CE4C036C1A94F90@TY2PR01MB4617.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200316214912.iakenhp7vyd37hmg@nol>
 <6300601584711975@vla4-87a00c2d2b1b.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <20200320193004.rqgf3iim4fugq3sm@nol>
 <bdfee4e0-a304-2498-8da5-3cb52c0a193e@oss.nttdata.com>
 <17190991585152609@sas1-d3a1bf2bd2e7.qloud-c.yandex.net>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <4e2b3576-63ab-3a7b-0237-eeac6f17e582@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:56:55 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17190991585152609@sas1-d3a1bf2bd2e7.qloud-c.yandex.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/03/26 2:17, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
> 
>> WAL usage patch [1] increments this version to 1_4 instead of 1_8.
>> I *guess* that's because previously this version was maintained
>> independently from pg_stat_statements' version. For example,
>> pg_stat_statements 1.4 seems to have used PGSS_V1_3.
> 
> As far as I remember, this was my proposed change in review a year ago.
> I think that having a clear analogy between the extension version and the function name would be more clear than sequential numbering of PGSS_V with different extension versions.
> For pgss 1.4 it was fine to use PGSS_V1_3, because there were no changes in pg_stat_statements_internal.
> pg_stat_statements 1.3 will call pg_stat_statements_1_3
> pg_stat_statements 1.4 - 1.7 will still call pg_stat_statements_1_3. In my opinion, this is the correct naming, since we did not need a new function.
> but pg_stat_statements 1.8 will call pg_stat_statements_1_4. It's not confusing?

Yeah, I withdraw my comment and agree that 1_8 looks less confusing.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters