On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:04 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > 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
Technically I think that was my suggestion from earlier in that thread that Alvaro just +1ed :) That said, I sort of put that one aside when both Bruce and Tom considered it "a pretty weird API" to quote Bruce. I had missed the fact that Tom changed his mind (maybe when picking up on more of the details). And FTR, I still think this is the best way forward. I think Andres also raised a good point about the ability to actually know which one is in use. Even if we keep the current way of *setting* the hook, I think it might be worthwhile to expose a PGC_INTERNAL guc that shows *which* implementation is actually in use? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
