Thread: Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with rules

Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with rules

From
Joe Conway
Date:
(moving to HACKERS)

Mike Mascari wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>>I think this shows how to do what you want:
>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-05/msg00301.php
> 
> Maybe debug_query_string should be mapped into a variable like
> CURRENT_USER? Perhaps something like CURRENT_QUERY?
> 

I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at 
least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special 
keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?

Comments?

Joe




Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with

From
Larry Rosenman
Date:

--On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 14:07:23 -0700 Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> 
wrote:

> (moving to HACKERS)
>
> Mike Mascari wrote:
>> Joe Conway wrote:
>>> I think this shows how to do what you want:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-05/msg00301.php
>>
>> Maybe debug_query_string should be mapped into a variable like
>> CURRENT_USER? Perhaps something like CURRENT_QUERY?
>>
>
> I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at
> least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special
> keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?
>
> Comments?
I was thinking the same thing.  Currently I use the contrib/dblink supplied
function, but a firstclass, in the default install, version would be nice.



-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749





Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with rules

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at 
> least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special 
> keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?

Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or
required to work 100%, into a supported feature.  I don't think
debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system
is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case.
And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it
supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query?

I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a
larger can of worms than you probably think.
        regards, tom lane


Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with

From
Joe Conway
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> 
>>I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at 
>>least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special 
>>keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?
> 
> Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or
> required to work 100%, into a supported feature.  I don't think
> debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system
> is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case.
> And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it
> supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query?
> 
> I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a
> larger can of worms than you probably think.
> 

Hmmm. Good points. This one may best wait for 7.5 at least. Does it make 
sense to turn it into a TODO?
 * promote debug_query_string into a documented, supported feature

Anyone who *does* use the function from dblink, please be sure to report 
circumstances where dblink_current_query() returns something other than 
what you would expect.

Thanks,

Joe



Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Added to TODO:
* Promote debug_query_string into a server-side function  current_query()


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> > 
> >>I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at 
> >>least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special 
> >>keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?
> > 
> > Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or
> > required to work 100%, into a supported feature.  I don't think
> > debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system
> > is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case.
> > And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it
> > supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query?
> > 
> > I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a
> > larger can of worms than you probably think.
> > 
> 
> Hmmm. Good points. This one may best wait for 7.5 at least. Does it make 
> sense to turn it into a TODO?
> 
>   * promote debug_query_string into a documented, supported feature
> 
> Anyone who *does* use the function from dblink, please be sure to report 
> circumstances where dblink_current_query() returns something other than 
> what you would expect.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Joe Conway writes:

> I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at
> least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special
> keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?

The current statement can be examined using the statistics views and
functions.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at
>> least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special
>> keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?

> The current statement can be examined using the statistics views and
> functions.

That's not very reliable though --- unless the current query has been
running for quite a few milliseconds, there's no guarantee it will be
reflected in the statistics collector's output.
        regards, tom lane