On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:52:44AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Meh ... we've generally regretted it when we "solved" a backwards > > compatibility problem by introducing a GUC that changes query semantics. > > I'm inclined to think we should either do it or not. > > In my opinion, we expose query id (and dbid, and userid) as the > canonical identifier for each pg_stat_statements entry, and have done > so for some time. That's the stable API -- not query text. I'm aware > of cases where query text was used as an identifier, but that ended up > being hashed anyway.
Speaking of hash values for queries, someone once asked me if we could display a hash value for queries displayed in pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_statements so they could take a running query and look in pg_stat_statements to see how long is usually ran. It seemed like a useful idea to me. I don't think they can hash the query manually because of the constants involved. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
