Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 10/05/2015 11:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: > >>I'm annoyed and disappointed that the patch committed does not even > >>begin to address the underlying problem -- it just adds an escape > >>hatch, and fixes another theoretical issue that no one was affected > >>by. Honestly, next time I won't bother. > >The problem as I see it is that what you submitted is a kluge that will > >have weird and unpredictable side effects. Moreover, it seems to be > >targeting an extremely narrow problem case, ie large numbers of queries > >that (a) have long query texts and (b) are distinct to the fingerprinting > >code and (c) fail. It seems to me that you could get into equal trouble > >with situations where (c) is not satisfied, and what then?
> FWIW, (a) and (b) but not (c) is probably the right description for my > client who has been seeing problems here. I think the fact that long IN lists are fingerprinted differently according to the number of elements in the list makes the scenario rather very likely -- not particularly narrow. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
