public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <[email protected]>
Cc: David Steele <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Stark <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Trukhanov <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:11:59 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CALNJ-vRRrdXu9igzh5PFTBghK5hnQWF6gpntTPo_+Agq_TsT5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<20210318155002.ggrgf2p2mvaodcox@localhost>
	<20210615151850.6nsue7z5xjhpytle@localhost>
	<20210616140212.kt3n5wi3alfz5i5d@localhost>
	<20210930134930.d4vzwhvxhfpk2zxt@localhost>
	<CALNJ-vSJvaJbcXr46JMyWFT5rO3BdaHO2E=xnAbLNDw1cyUJ-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20210930150957.tz3h3unjyrzatw6e@localhost>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]> writes:
> New status: Waiting on Author

> This seems incorrect, as the only feedback I've got was "this is a bad
> idea", and no reaction on follow-up questions.

I changed the status because it seems to me there is no chance of
this being committed as-is.

1. I think an absolute prerequisite before we could even consider
changing the query jumbler rules this much is to do the work that was
put off when the jumbler was moved into core: that is, provide some
honest support for multiple query-ID generation methods being used at
the same time.  Even if you successfully make a case for
pg_stat_statements to act this way, other consumers of query IDs
aren't going to be happy with it.

2. You haven't made a case for it.  The original complaint was
about different lengths of IN lists not being treated as equivalent,
but this patch has decided to do I'm-not-even-sure-quite-what
about treating different Params as equivalent.  Plus you're trying
to invoke eval_const_expressions in the jumbler; that is absolutely
Not OK, for both safety and semantic reasons.

If you backed off to just treating ArrayExprs containing different
numbers of Consts as equivalent, maybe that'd be something we could
adopt without fixing point 1.  I don't think anything that fuzzes the
treatment of Params can get away with that, though.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (12+ messages)  latest in thread

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], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
  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