On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> writes: >> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but >> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and, >> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired its number should be >> eliminated, practically, for-ever. This way re-introductions between >> two samplings of pg_stat_statements cannot be confused for a >> contiguously maintained statistic on a query. > > This argument seems sensible to me. Is there any use-case where the > proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed > hash value?
Yes. The hash could be used to aggregate query execution costs across entire WAL-based replication clusters. I'm not opposed to Daniel's suggestion, though. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
