public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Lukas Fittl <[email protected]>
To: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Sami Imseih <[email protected]>
Cc: zengman <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Refactor query normalization into core query jumbling
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:19:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP53Pkz0XqVoHv-pfq+i6Ngs5HX1TC=G6spHWGMpusARBZ0YbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAA5RZ0sbWmqdUBFo8JXMJe72pnwjxVY58htJ6pKbwnyQuRctQw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53PkxqGbPw5VzpacyJb2wTofYJadCoUmxV8s2o5tHzKznwbg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0t3-srmtaVNfzv0HEzXCa78eQDKYVak+3zgEccnKPZHHA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0t_CJs9ye1PPBy-e0ajZ-6FgKvNEoacW9keCtF_7Y2ycQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0vEnNvp7_Ni8bWwh4GE53rg_YwNjqynQG=JpNu3YzzAWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53PkzCzeDpg6dCzVrU17LCiCmRSWfEt-5dr4y+VHnTxKr_9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0tzLhGxR3cCQtPs1=HeGWh0WDDBC1KDTgOh9x9u2gvy1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53PkyY7AhQ8jZDwtHokyEfpuHLxxDvtY7EmcasR_n80yLiRQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0unJX_EwepME9NAuB=u8LjtRCU67FW6yMP07tFkJE5yRA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53PkycUYE6d_Pyt2BcxmTaq7v8qDt6LtBObVfsUt+WNWf0ug@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 10:18 PM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote:
> This line of arguments is stronger for the normalization of the query
> string. Why should the core code decide what a normalized string
> should look like when it comes to the detection of the constants, if
> any? Instead of a dollar-quoted number, we could enforce a bunch of
> things, like a '?' or a '$woozah$' at these locations.
Fair enough, though I haven't seen any extensions that do that in
practice - its reasonable to have normalization result in a query
string that's parsable again and can be passed to EXPLAIN
(GENERIC_PLAN).
> Saying that, the key point of the patch is to take a copy of the
> JumbleState locations, and recompute it for the needs of PGSS for the
> sake of the normalized query representation. Hence, why don't we just
> do that at the end? That should be enough to enforce the const marker
> for the JumbleState across all the loaded extensions that want to look
> at it. This leads me to the simpler patch attached.
>
> Comments or tomatoes? That's simpler, and I'd be OK with just that
> for v19. That would be much better than the current state of affairs,
> where PGSS decides to enforce its own ideas in the JumbleState, ideas
> fed to anything looping into the post-parse-analyze hook after PGSS.
I'm not convinced that making the const change alone is a good idea,
without also providing some helpers to reduce the repeated code in
extensions.
What if we only put the ComputeConstantLengths (as Sami had it in v7)
in core, together with making JumbleState const?
Thanks,
Lukas
--
Lukas Fittl
view thread (35+ 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]
Subject: Re: Refactor query normalization into core query jumbling
In-Reply-To: <CAP53Pkz0XqVoHv-pfq+i6Ngs5HX1TC=G6spHWGMpusARBZ0YbQ@mail.gmail.com>
* 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