On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:04 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:30:53AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > I agree. If those numbers are indeed representable, it seems like > > better to pay that overhead than to pay the overhead of trying to > > de-dupe it. > > > > Let's hope they are :) > > :) > > > Looking through ti again my feeling said the toplevel column should go > > after the queryid and not before, but I'm not going to open up a > > bikeshed over that. > > > > I've added in a comment to cover that one that you removed (if you did > > send an updated patch as you said, then I missed it -- sorry), and > > applied the rest. > > Oops, somehow I totally forgot to send the new patch, sorry :( > > While looking at the patch, I unfortunately just realize that I unnecessarily > bumped the version to 1.10, as 1.9 was already new as of pg14. Honestly I > have > no idea why I used 1.10 at that time. Version numbers are not a scarce > resource but maybe it would be better to keep 1.10 for a future major postgres > version? > > If yes, PFA a patch to merge 1.10 in 1.9.
I actually thought I looked at that, but clearly I was confused one way or another. I think you're right, it's cleaner to merge it into 1.9, so applied and pushed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
