Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:18:50PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 09:38:09AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> > > On 1/5/21 10:51 AM, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +   int         lastExprLenght = 0;
> > > >
> > > > Did you mean to name the variable lastExprLenghth ?
> > > >
> > > > w.r.t. extracting to helper method, the second and third
> > > > if (currentExprIdx == pgss_merge_threshold - 1) blocks are similar.
> > > > It is up to you whether to create the helper method.
> > > > I am fine with the current formation.
> > >
> > > Dmitry, thoughts on this review?
> >
> > Oh, right. lastExprLenghth is obviously a typo, and as we agreed that
> > the helper is not strictly necessary I wanted to wait a bit hoping for
> > more feedback and eventually to post an accumulated patch. Doesn't make
> > sense to post another version only to fix one typo :)
>
> Hi,
>
> I've prepared a new rebased version to deal with the new way of
> computing query id, but as always there is one tricky part. From what I
> understand, now an external module can provide custom implementation for
> query id computation algorithm. It seems natural to think this machinery
> could be used instead of patch in the thread, i.e. one could create a
> custom logic that will enable constants collapsing as needed, so that
> same queries with different number of constants in an array will be
> hashed into the same record.
>
> But there is a limitation in how such queries will be normalized
> afterwards — to reduce level of surprise it's necessary to display the
> fact that a certain query in fact had more constants that are showed in
> pgss record. Ideally LocationLen needs to carry some bits of information
> on what exactly could be skipped, and generate_normalized_query needs to
> understand that, both are not reachable for an external module with
> custom query id logic (without replicating significant part of the
> existing code). Hence, a new version of the patch.

Forgot to mention a couple of people who already reviewed the patch.