Subject: Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
References: <5601D354.5000703@BlueTreble.com>
 <CAM3SWZRo_5ZznTp=Mg5Kh2eq-LjWLVS-BXJwsHe_dS50g34Mfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <15898.1442965225@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZT41NeiK74J4PeKBA=rkML6-TR1pmj_ABf7Y6c8ihR+4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM3SWZTOjkP9EJsaUcvhpHxXfdCyXbCcFuTDNT4Qct90ZMU8Hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56030E72.9070104@BlueTreble.com>
 <CAM3SWZRr6WqO7ZZc-EfuZU97TN6wcSiXvi8mRZe6ZGY6WCz+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <30112.1444058156@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Message-ID: <561296EC.805@dunslane.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:27:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30112.1444058156@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


On 10/05/2015 11:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
>> I'm annoyed and disappointed that the patch committed does not even
>> begin to address the underlying problem -- it just adds an escape
>> hatch, and fixes another theoretical issue that no one was affected
>> by. Honestly, next time I won't bother.
> The problem as I see it is that what you submitted is a kluge that will
> have weird and unpredictable side effects.  Moreover, it seems to be
> targeting an extremely narrow problem case, ie large numbers of queries
> that (a) have long query texts and (b) are distinct to the fingerprinting
> code and (c) fail.  It seems to me that you could get into equal trouble
> with situations where (c) is not satisfied, and what then?
>
> I'm certainly amenable to doing further work on this problem.  But I do
> not think that what we had was well-enough-thought-out to risk pushing
> it just hours before a release deadline.  Let's arrive at a more
> carefully considered fix in a leisurely fashion.
>
> 			


FWIW, (a) and (b) but not (c) is probably the right description for my 
client who has been seeing problems here.

cheers

andrew


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers