Message-ID: <5bcbf926-3d5a-e953-79a6-b6ab0f8b23a0@postgrespro.ru>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:29:29 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>,
 "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
References: <Y8eZ9/3STyhF57RV@paquier.xyz>
 <50b571dc-e0c0-22be-9803-4a3480d2e792@enterprisedb.com>
 <Y8oaA5Vxnr4rzEDJ@paquier.xyz>
 <e4d61d52-4992-d190-b5ad-48c6c752942c@enterprisedb.com>
 <Y8tdmPlzFyNcrPR3@paquier.xyz>
 <bf604c8d-b6e9-284b-327a-cac8417a74e8@enterprisedb.com>
 <Y8+BdCOjxykre5es@paquier.xyz>
 <9695f035-0f2b-92b9-deed-0b7e5bb7e4e0@enterprisedb.com>
 <Y9M+C2obzgRnXPNd@paquier.xyz>
 <268fd337-8bb7-92e6-0da2-416c022c11f3@enterprisedb.com>
 <ZKyHv2qN2jrZMaWO@paquier.xyz>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <ZKyHv2qN2jrZMaWO@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5bcbf926-3d5a-e953-79a6-b6ab0f8b23a0%40postgrespro.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On 11/7/2023 05:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:48:45AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 27.01.23 03:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> At the end, that would be unnoticeable for the average user, I guess,
>>> but here are the numbers I get on my laptop :)
>>
>> Personally, I think we do not want the two jumble methods in parallel.
>>
>> Maybe there are other opinions.
> 
> (Thanks Jonathan for the poke.)
> 
> Now that we are in mid-beta for 16, it would be a good time to
> conclude on this open item:
> "Reconsider a utility_query_id GUC to control if query jumbling of
> utilities can go through the past string-only mode and the new mode?"
> 
> In Postgres ~15, utility commands used a hash of the query string to
> compute their query ID.  The current query jumbling code uses a Query
> instead, like any other queries.  I have registered this open item as
> a self-reminder, mostly in case there would be an argument to have a
> GUC where users could switch from one mode to another.  See here as
> well for some computation times for each method (table is in ns, wiht
> millions of iterations):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y9eeYinDb1AcpWrG@paquier.xyz
> 
> I still don't think that we need both methods based on these numbers,
> but there may be more opinions about that?  Are people OK if this open
> item is discarded?
I vote for only one method based on a query tree structure.
BTW, did you think about different algorithms of queryId generation? 
Auto-generated queryId code can open a way for extensions to have 
easy-supporting custom queryIds.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional