On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> writes:
>> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
>> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and,
>> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be
>> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between
>> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a
>> contiguously maintained statistic on a query.
>
> This argument seems sensible to me. Is there any use-case where the
> proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed
> hash value?
Yes. The hash could be used to aggregate query execution costs across
entire WAL-based replication clusters. I'm not opposed to Daniel's
suggestion, though.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
