Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Yasuo Honda
Subject Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Date
Msg-id CAKmOUTmibvE0MFvSapg0mDT2h0nyk9-D7GchFJbk71GJ9CDW_g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions  (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
List pgsql-hackers
Yes. The script uses prepared statements because Ruby on Rails enables
prepared statements by default for PostgreSQL databases.

Then I tested this branch
https://github.com/yahonda/postgres/tree/pg_stat_statements without
using prepared statements as follows and all of them do not normalize
in clause values.

- Disabled prepared statements by setting `prepared_statements: false`
https://gist.github.com/yahonda/2c2d6ac7a955886a305750eecfd07c5e

- Use ruby-pg
https://gist.github.com/yahonda/2f0efb11ae888d8f6b27a07e0b833fdf

- Use psql
https://gist.github.com/yahonda/c830379b33d66a743aef159aa03d7e49

I do not know why even if I use psql, the query column at
pg_stat_sql_statement shows it is like a prepared statement "IN ($1,
$2)".

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:35 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote:

> From what I understand out of the description this ruby script uses
> prepared statements, passing values as parameters, right? Unfortunately
> the current version of the patch doesn't handle that, it works with
> constants only [1]. The original incarnation of this feature was able to
> handle that, but the implementation was considered to be not suitable --
> thus, to make some progress, it was left outside.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Catalog domain not-null constraints