Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-11-15 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Julien Rouhaud >> wrote: >>> I'm also rather sceptical about this change. > >> Hm. Thinking a bit about this

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-11-14 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Julien Rouhaud > wrote: >> I'm also rather sceptical about this change. > Hm. Thinking a bit about this patch, it presents the advantage to be > able to track the same queries easily

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-11-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > On 10/10/2015 08:46, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: >> On 2015/10/03 6:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-11-03 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> At least, I would like to give some options to be chosen by the >> user. Is it possible and/or reasonable? >> > > I'm also rather sceptical about this change. Is anyone willing to argue for it, apart from

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-10-31 Thread Julien Rouhaud
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On 10/10/2015 08:46, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > On 2015/10/03 6:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu >> wrote: >>> I know this still needs to be discussed, but I would like to >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-10-10 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
On 2015/10/03 6:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: I know this still needs to be discussed, but I would like to submit a patch for further discussion at the next CF, 2015-11. I think I already expressed this in my explanation

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-10-02 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > I know this still needs to be discussed, but I would like to submit > a patch for further discussion at the next CF, 2015-11. I think I already expressed this in my explanation of the current behavior, but to be clear: -1

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-09-02 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
On 2015/09/01 14:39, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > On 2015/09/01 14:01, Tom Lane wrote: >> Satoshi Nagayasu writes: >>> On 2015/09/01 13:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote: If you want to use the queryId field directly, which I recall you mentioning before, then that's harder. There

[HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
Hi, I have a question on jumbling queries in pg_stat_statements. I found that JumbleRangeTable() uses relation oid in RangeTblEntry. Obviously, this would result different queryid when the table gets re-created (dropped and created). Why don't we use relation name (with looking up the catalog)

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > Why don't we use relation name (with looking up the catalog) > on query jumbling? For performance reason? I think that there is a good case for preferring this behavior. While it is a little confusing that

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > BTW, I'm interested in improving the queryid portability now because > I'd like to use it in other extensions. :) > That's the reason why I'm looking at query jumbling here. Are you interested in having the query

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
On 2015/09/01 13:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: BTW, I'm interested in improving the queryid portability now because I'd like to use it in other extensions. :) That's the reason why I'm looking at query jumbling here. Are

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
On 2015/09/01 14:01, Tom Lane wrote: > Satoshi Nagayasu writes: >> On 2015/09/01 13:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> If you want to use the queryId field directly, which I recall you >>> mentioning before, then that's harder. There is simply no contract >>> among extensions for

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
On 2015/09/01 12:36, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: Why don't we use relation name (with looking up the catalog) on query jumbling? For performance reason? I think that there is a good case for preferring this behavior.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_statements query jumbling question

2015-08-31 Thread Tom Lane
Satoshi Nagayasu writes: > On 2015/09/01 13:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> If you want to use the queryId field directly, which I recall you >> mentioning before, then that's harder. There is simply no contract >> among extensions for "owning" a queryId. But when the