On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I see this is marked as ready for committer. Where does it stand in > relation to the other long-running thread about "calls under-estimation > propagation"? I was surprised to find that there isn't any CommitFest > entry linked to that thread, so I'm wondering if that proposal is > abandoned or what. If it's not, is committing this going to blow up > that patch?
I believe that proposal was withdrawn. I think the conclusion there was that we should just expose queryid and be done with it. In a way, exposing the queryid enabled this work, because it provides an identifier that can be used instead of sending large query texts each call. > BTW, I'm also thinking that the "detected_version" kluge is about ready > to collapse of its own weight, or at least is clearly going to break in > future. What we need to do is embed the API version in the C name of the > pg_stat_statements function instead. I agree that it isn't scalable. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
