On 2020-Oct-05, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I think this proposal is a mess. I was willing to hold my nose
> and have a queryId field in the internal Query struct without any solid
> consensus about what its semantics are and which extensions get to use it.
> Exposing it to end users seems like a bridge too far, though. In
> particular, I'm afraid that that will cause people to expect it to have
> consistent values across PG versions, or even just across architectures
> within one version.
I wonder if it would help to purposefully change the computation so that
it is not -- for instance, hash the system_identifier as initial value.
Then users would be forced to accept that it'll change as soon as it
migrates to another server or is upgraded to a new major version.