Hi, On 2022-08-31 11:00:05 -0700, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > On 8/31/22 9:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > I suspect we should carve out things like CALL, PREPARE, EXECUTE from > > track_utility - it's more or less an architectural accident that they're > > utility statements. It's a bit less clear that SET should be dealt with > > that > > way. > > Regarding SET, the compelling use case was around "application_name" > whose purpose is to provide a label in pg_stat_activity and on log > lines, which can be used to improve observability and connect queries to > their source in application code.
I wasn't saying that SET shouldn't be jumbled, just that it seems more reasonable to track it only when track_utility is enabled, rather than doing so even when that's disabled. Which I do think makes sense for executing a prepared statement and calling a procedure, since they're really only utility statements by accident. > Personally, at this point, I think pg_stat_statements is critical > infrastructure for anyone running PostgreSQL at scale. The information > it provides is indispensable. I don't think it's really defensible to > tell people that if they want to scale, then they need to fly blind on > any utility statements. I wasn't suggesting doing so at all. Greetings, Andres Freund
