Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
Date
Msg-id Z6wal4gWT4NW6sJv@jrouhaud
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query  (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:57:46PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > Of course some people may want to keep the current behavior, if they have
> > limited number of temp tables or similar, so I had a GUC for that.  I don't
> > think that the community would really welcome such GUC for core-postgres,
> > especially since it wouldn't be pg_stat_statements specific.
>
> FWIW, I think options to tweak queryId computation is something
> that should be in core. It was discussed earlier in the context
> of IN list merging; the patch for this currently has the guc
> for the feature in pg_stat_statements, but there was a discussion
> about actually moving this to core [1] Giving the user a way
> to control certain behavior about the queryId computation
> is a good thing to do in core; especially queryId is no longer
> just consumed in pg_stat_statements. Maybe the right answer
> is an enum GUC, not sure yet.
>
> Specifically for the use-case you mention, using names vs OIDs in
> queryId computation is a valid use case for more than temporary tables,
> I can also think of upgrade, dump/restore, logical replication cases which
> can then allow for a consistent queryId.

Well, the ability for extensions to override the actual queryid calculation was
the result of more than half a decade of strong disagreements about it.   And
I'm definitely not volunteering to reopen that topic :)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation