Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZR=TTnitUjEwbeKbr4x0O5oLZkyLrtFttOhnsKM1yTcmQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There seems to be no problem even if we use bigint as the type of
>> unsigned 32-bit integer like queryid. For example, txid_current()
>> returns the transaction ID, i.e., unsigned 32-bit integer, as bigint.
>> Could you tell me what the problem is when using bigint for queryid?
>
> We're talking about the output of some view, right, not internal storage?
> +1 for using bigint for that.  Using OID is definitely an abuse, because
> the value *isn't* an OID.  And besides, what if we someday decide we need
> 64-bit keys not 32-bit?

Fair enough. I was concerned about the cost of external storage of
64-bit integers (unlike query text, they might have to be stored many
times for many distinct intervals or something like that), but in
hindsight that was fairly miserly of me.

Attached revision displays signed 64-bit integers instead.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch