MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA5RZ0vM9AsEqvKued2drKZJ1opt3wbYaDbxGzi-khkNzwn7og@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z6Ks3ta5089DXiPc@paquier.xyz> <CAA5RZ0sfRbd1xcq_oHNA0TPr57yM8qkg-GoD6A0nUfyxZhs33Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkxocbNr+eRag3FEJp3-7S1U80FspOg8UQjO902TWMG=6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0u6yJdFL=p5vdpbZFS-2YY+Z6vtzmt4gejgZa3RcNiWMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z6lVcWdNQtgz9BGI@paquier.xyz> <CAA5RZ0t80hP2aTv97QtEJy39GkxKmDBVDiTBApfiuTa4O=TEWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z6vmYBgLRLXkx5fi@paquier.xyz> <Z6v3dSJ7yEJ9xai4@jrouhaud>
 <Z6wAaGieBgd0VX_8@paquier.xyz> <Z6wF_eCtCjav3hrQ@jrouhaud>
In-Reply-To: <Z6wF_eCtCjav3hrQ@jrouhaud>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:57:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5RZ0t19ourU6_dVZ7yLsDkbJ4Bu5iAKHfsb8TVrR2pg-92vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Marko M <marko@pganalyze.com>, 
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0t19ourU6_dVZ7yLsDkbJ4Bu5iAKHfsb8TVrR2pg-92vg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> Of course some people may want to keep the current behavior, if they have
> limited number of temp tables or similar, so I had a GUC for that.  I don't
> think that the community would really welcome such GUC for core-postgres,
> especially since it wouldn't be pg_stat_statements specific.

FWIW, I think options to tweak queryId computation is something
that should be in core. It was discussed earlier in the context
of IN list merging; the patch for this currently has the guc
for the feature in pg_stat_statements, but there was a discussion
about actually moving this to core [1] Giving the user a way
to control certain behavior about the queryId computation
is a good thing to do in core; especially queryId is no longer
just consumed in pg_stat_statements. Maybe the right answer
is an enum GUC, not sure yet.

Specifically for the use-case you mention, using names vs OIDs in
queryId computation is a valid use case for more than temporary tables,
I can also think of upgrade, dump/restore, logical replication cases which
can then allow for a consistent queryId.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202502111852.btskmr7nhien%40alvherre.pgsql

-- 
Sami