On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:25:32AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:36:38AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2021-Mar-24, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > > > > > From e08c9d5fc86ba722844d97000798de868890aba3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > > > > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:43:23 -0400 > > > > Subject: [PATCH v20 2/3] Expose queryid in pg_stat_activity and > > > > > > > src/backend/executor/execMain.c | 9 ++ > > > > src/backend/executor/execParallel.c | 14 ++- > > > > src/backend/executor/nodeGather.c | 3 +- > > > > src/backend/executor/nodeGatherMerge.c | 4 +- > > > > > > Hmm... > > > > > > I find it odd that there's executor code that acquires the current query > > > ID from pgstat, after having been put there by planner or ExecutorStart > > > itself. Seems like a modularity violation. I wonder if it would make > > > more sense to have the value maybe in struct EState (or perhaps there's > > > a better place -- but I don't think they have a way to reach the > > > QueryDesc anyhow), put there by ExecutorStart, so that places such as > > > execParallel, nodeGather etc don't have to fetch it from pgstat but from > > > EState. > > > > The current queryid is already available in the Estate, as the underlying > > PlannedStmt contains it. The problem is that we want to display the top > > level > > queryid, not the current query one, and the top level queryid is held in > > pgstat. > > So is the current approach ok? If not I'm afraid that detecting and caching > the top level queryid in the executor parts would lead to some code > duplication.
I assume it is since Alvaro didn't reply. I am planning to apply this soon. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.