Re: Issue in recent pg_stat_statements? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Christensen
Subject Re: Issue in recent pg_stat_statements?
Date
Msg-id CAOxo6XK5f0VPM-RhgpZq2s6wiOV6isnEC2tsgNyPfZd8pD0PYg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Issue in recent pg_stat_statements?  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Issue in recent pg_stat_statements?
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:18 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:40 PM David Christensen
<david.christensen@crunchydata.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Is this an expected change, or is this in fact broken?  In previous revisions, this was showing the INSERT and SELECT at the very least.  I'm unclear as to why the regression test is still passing, so want to verify that I'm not doing something wrong in the testing.
>>
>> Yes, you want to look into the queryid functionality. See
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/35457b09-36f8-add3-1d07-6034fa585ca8%40oss.nttdata.com
>>
>> Interface changes may still be coming in 14 for that. Or warnings.
>
>
> Hmm, I'm unclear as to why you would potentially want to use pg_stat_statements *without* this functionality.

Using pg_stat_statements with a different query_id semantics without
having to fork pg_stat_statements.

I can see that argument for allowing alternatives, but the current default of nothing seems to be particularly non-useful, so some sensible default value would seem to be in order, or I can predict a whole mess of future user complaints.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Issue in recent pg_stat_statements?