On 3 October 2012 19:54, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.
Could we please try and reach a consensus here? If you're still dead
set against exposing the hash value, I think that just following what
Daniel has suggested is a fair compromise.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
