On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about >>> the shared-library-name-with-fixed-function-name detail, but certainly >>> it seems to be useful to separate "I need a query-id" from the details >>> of the ID calculation. >>> >>> Rather than a GUC per se for the ID provider, maybe we could have a >>> function hook that defaults to pointing at the in-core computation, >>> and then a module wanting to override that just gets into the hook. >> >> I have a preference to determining the provider via GUC instead of a >> hook because it is both easier to introspect and easier to configure.
So, this thread has died two weeks ago, and it is still an open item. Could it be possible to move to a resolution by beta1? The consensus I can get from the thread is that we should have a tri-value state to track an extra "auto" for the query ID computation, as proposed by Alvaro here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210426174331.GA19401@alvherre.pgsql Unfortunately, nothing has happened to be able to do something like that. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
