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

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Date
Msg-id Z68Tba4x2N2FaER_@jrouhaud
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions  (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:36:48AM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Feb-14, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> 
> > Since the merging is a yes/no option (I think there used to be some discussions
> > about having a threshold or some other fancy modes), maybe you could instead
> > differentiate the merged version by have 2 constants rather than this "..." or
> > something like that?
> 
> Maybe the representation can be "($1 /*, ... */)" so that it's obvious
> that the array extends beyond the first element but is still
> syntactically valid.

Yeah that works too and it's probably way easier to implement.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Borisov
Date:
Subject: Re: Get rid of WALBufMappingLock
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Add an option to skip loading missing publication to avoid logical replication failure