Thread: Squash constant lists in query jumbling by default
Re: Álvaro Herrera > Introduce squashing of constant lists in query jumbling > > pg_stat_statements produces multiple entries for queries like > SELECT something FROM table WHERE col IN (1, 2, 3, ...) > > depending on the number of parameters, because every element of > ArrayExpr is individually jumbled. Most of the time that's undesirable, > especially if the list becomes too large. > > Fix this by introducing a new GUC query_id_squash_values which modifies > the node jumbling code to only consider the first and last element of a > list of constants, rather than each list element individually. This > affects both the query_id generated by query jumbling, as well as > pg_stat_statements query normalization so that it suppresses printing of > the individual elements of such a list. > > The default value is off, meaning the previous behavior is maintained. The "jumble names of temp tables" thread was briefly touching this [1], I'm starting a new thread since the others are already very long. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA5RZ0uNofEXfEfNw3uRN3D3oXkFPQ_s%2BhuLLHMKR_%2BMCk8RPQ%40mail.gmail.com#c357c56c3924642e8ef73cc1c8a0286e Two points were made: 1) this should be on by default 2) there should be no GUC for it. For 1), Sami said "Why would anyone not want to squash the IN list?" to which I can only agree. Michael agreed as well, that's already +3. For 2), Tom said that configurability is 1) often much less useful than originally planned, and 2) tools have to cope with both settings anyway, making implementing them harder. Plus, switching at run-time makes the result even less predictable. So, I would propose that we drop the GUC and make it the default. Opinions? Christoph
Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
> For 2), Tom said that configurability is 1) often much less useful
> than originally planned, and 2) tools have to cope with both settings
> anyway, making implementing them harder. Plus, switching at run-time
> makes the result even less predictable.
To clarify that last bit: if some clients run with the GUC on and some
with it off, you have a mess. Even statements that are completely
identical will have different query IDs under the two settings.
If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on
the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break
pg_stat_statements that way.
regards, tom lane
On 2025-Mar-25, Tom Lane wrote: > Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes: > > For 2), Tom said that configurability is 1) often much less useful > > than originally planned, and 2) tools have to cope with both settings > > anyway, making implementing them harder. Plus, switching at run-time > > makes the result even less predictable. > > To clarify that last bit: if some clients run with the GUC on and some > with it off, you have a mess. Even statements that are completely > identical will have different query IDs under the two settings. True. > If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on > the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break > pg_stat_statements that way. I have no problem making it superuser-only, and I can see making "on" be the default. I am not opposed to removing it completely either, if we really think that the current behavior is no longer useful for anybody. Earlier in the discussion, other possible values for the option were suggested, such as a way to distinguish arrays that had "lots" (say, hundreds or more) of entries from arrays that were "small". That could be selected by the user (or site admin) using this GUC, though there was no agreement on exactly what that would be. During the FOSDEM 2024 development meeting there was a general dislike of this idea, which AFAIR was mostly predicated on the displayed query no longer being valid SQL. But now that we've chosen a format that uses SQL comments, this is no longer a problem, so I think we haven't closed that door yet. But we may still find out that no user cares about this. Dmitry? -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Los dioses no protegen a los insensatos. Éstos reciben protección de otros insensatos mejor dotados" (Luis Wu, Mundo Anillo)
> > If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on > > the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break > > pg_stat_statements that way. > > I have no problem making it superuser-only, and I can see making "on" be > the default. I am not opposed to removing it completely either, if we > really think that the current behavior is no longer useful for anybody. I am in favor of complete removal. [1] will change the behavior of table jumbling without introducing a GUC, and I don't think we should introduce a GUC for the squash values case either. Why one behavior change is configurable while the other is not? seems confusing, IMO. Also, as a matter of principle, it seems most are favoring not introducing GUCs to configure queryId behavior. I agree. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA5RZ0uNofEXfEfNw3uRN3D3oXkFPQ_s%2BhuLLHMKR_%2BMCk8RPQ%40mail.gmail.com#c357c56c3924642e8ef73cc1c8a0286e -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 6:28 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2025-Mar-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on
> the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break
> pg_stat_statements that way.
I have no problem making it superuser-only, and I can see making "on" be
the default. I am not opposed to removing it completely either, if we
really think that the current behavior is no longer useful for anybody.
I'm in favor of removing the GUC of course, but if memory serves there
were some folks in the patch discussion thread, who claimed they would
need to be able to keep non-squashed behavior. I don't recall if there were
particular arguments to support that, will try to find those messages again.
But overall as long as nobody objects, I think it's fine to get rid of GUC.
Earlier in the discussion, other possible values for the option were
suggested, such as a way to distinguish arrays that had "lots" (say,
hundreds or more) of entries from arrays that were "small". That could
be selected by the user (or site admin) using this GUC, though there was
no agreement on exactly what that would be. During the FOSDEM 2024
development meeting there was a general dislike of this idea, which
AFAIR was mostly predicated on the displayed query no longer being valid
SQL. But now that we've chosen a format that uses SQL comments, this is
no longer a problem, so I think we haven't closed that door yet. But we
may still find out that no user cares about this.
Agree, the way how things work now brings this option back on the table.
I can refresh the patch doing this, but I'm afk for about a week so it will
take some time. At the same time the proposal to do squashing by default
does not seem to be strictly dependent on that, so maybe they could be
considered as isolated ideas.
> At the same time the proposal to do squashing by default > does not seem to be strictly dependent on that, so maybe they could be > considered as isolated ideas. Here is a patch to remove the GUC, if we settle on doing so. -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Attachment
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 7:40 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 6:28 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:On 2025-Mar-25, Tom Lane wrote:> If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on> the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break> pg_stat_statements that way.I have no problem making it superuser-only, and I can see making "on" bethe default. I am not opposed to removing it completely either, if wereally think that the current behavior is no longer useful for anybody.I'm in favor of removing the GUC of course, but if memory serves therewere some folks in the patch discussion thread, who claimed they wouldneed to be able to keep non-squashed behavior. I don't recall if there wereparticular arguments to support that, will try to find those messages again.
Nevermind, I've checked it out -- I think the case I had in mind [1] in fact
supports GUC removal:
> If anyone subtly changes jumbling logic when the extension is
active, the instance could get huge performance issues.On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 17:28 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > The "jumble names of temp tables" thread was briefly touching this [1], > I'm starting a new thread since the others are already very long. > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA5RZ0uNofEXfEfNw3uRN3D3oXkFPQ_s%2BhuLLHMKR_%2BMCk8RPQ%40mail.gmail.com#c357c56c3924642e8ef73cc1c8a0286e > > Two points were made: > > 1) this should be on by default > 2) there should be no GUC for it. +1 on both Yours, Laurenz Albe
On 2025-Mar-25, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 17:28 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > The "jumble names of temp tables" thread was briefly touching this [1], > > I'm starting a new thread since the others are already very long. > > > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA5RZ0uNofEXfEfNw3uRN3D3oXkFPQ_s%2BhuLLHMKR_%2BMCk8RPQ%40mail.gmail.com#c357c56c3924642e8ef73cc1c8a0286e > > > > Two points were made: > > > > 1) this should be on by default > > 2) there should be no GUC for it. > > +1 on both Well, the votes are quite clear, so I have pushed Sami's patch. Thank, everybody! -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "That sort of implies that there are Emacs keystrokes which aren't obscure. I've been using it daily for 2 years now and have yet to discover any key sequence which makes any sense." (Paul Thomas)