OK, reverted and placed back in "Needs Review" status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > It wasn't marked Ready For Committer, so presumably the reviewer
> > wasn't done with it. I know I hadn't looked at it at all, because
> > I was waiting for the commitfest review process to finish.
>
> ... and now that I have, I find at least four highly questionable
> things about it:
>
> 1. The placement of the hook. Why is it three lines down in
> ProcessUtility? It's probably reasonable to have the Assert first,
> but I don't see why the hook function should have the ability to
> editorialize on the behavior of everything about ProcessUtility
> *except* the read-only-xact check.
>
> 2. The naming and documentation of the added GUC setting for
> pg_stat_statements. "track_ddl" seems pretty bizarre to me because
> there are many utility statements that no one would call DDL. COPY,
> for example, is certainly not DDL. Why not call it "track_utility"?
>
> 3. The enable-condition test in pgss_ProcessUtility. Is it really
> appropriate to be gating this by isTopLevel? I should think that
> the nested_level check in pgss_enabled would be sufficient and
> more likely to do what's expected.
>
> 4. The special case for CopyStmt. That's just weird, and it adds
> a maintenance requirement we don't need. I don't see a really good
> argument why COPY (alone among utility statements) deserves to have
> a rowcount tracked by pg_stat_statements, but even if you want that
> it'd be better to rely on examining the completionTag after the fact.
> The fact that the tag is "COPY nnnn" is part of the user-visible API
> for COPY and won't change lightly. The division of labor between
> ProcessUtility and copy.c is far more volatile, but this patch has
> injected itself into that.
>
> regards, tom lane
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
