On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 7:40 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 6:28 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote: > > On 2025-Mar-25, Tom Lane wrote: > > > If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on > > > the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break > > > pg_stat_statements that way. > > > I have no problem making it superuser-only, and I can see making "on" be > > the default. I am not opposed to removing it completely either, if we > > really think that the current behavior is no longer useful for anybody. > > > I'm in favor of removing the GUC of course, but if memory serves there > were some folks in the patch discussion thread, who claimed they would > need to be able to keep non-squashed behavior. I don't recall if there were > particular arguments to support that, will try to find those messages > again. > Nevermind, I've checked it out -- I think the case I had in mind [1] in fact supports GUC removal: > If anyone subtly changes jumbling logic when the extension is active, the instance could get huge performance issues. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b8721722-a73e-0ee9-6513-425e9c88d92f%40postgrespro.ru >
