On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:14 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:20:05PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > But there are many people that aren't happy with the current hashing
> > approach. If we're going to move the computation in core, shouldn't
> > we listen to their complaints and let them pay some probably quite
> > high overhead to base the hash on name and/or fully qualified name
> > rather than OID?
> > For instance people using logical replication to upgrade to a newer
> > version may want to easily compare query performance on the new
> > version, or people with multi-tenant databases may want to ignore the
> > schema name to keep a low number of different queryid.
>
> Well, we have to consider how complex the user interface has to be to
> allow more flexibility. We don't need to allow every option a user will
> want.
>
> With a version number, we have the ability to improve the algorithm or
> add customization, but for the first use, we are probably better off
> keeping it simple.
I thought your earlier idea of allowing this to be controlled by a GUC
was good. There could be a default method built into core, matching
what pg_stat_statements does, so you could select no hashing or that
method no matter what. Then extensions could provide other methods
which could be selected via the GUC.
I don't really understand how a version number helps. It's not like
there is going to be a v2 that is in all ways better than v1. If there
are different algorithms here, they are going to be customized for
different needs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
