On 3 October 2012 19:54, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> This argument seems sensible to me. Is there any use-case where the >> proposed counter wouldn't do what people wished to do with an exposed >> hash value? > > Yes. The hash could be used to aggregate query execution costs across > entire WAL-based replication clusters. I'm not opposed to Daniel's > suggestion, though.
Could we please try and reach a consensus here? If you're still dead set against exposing the hash value, I think that just following what Daniel has suggested is a fair compromise. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
