Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
От | Álvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 202503031156.uoruitdjdwfr@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Feb-18, Sami Imseih wrote: > > It's not a question about whether it's possible to implement this, > > but about whether it makes sense. In case of plain constants it's > > straightforward -- they will not change anything meaningfully and > > hence could be squashed from the query. Now for a function, that > > might return different values for the same set of constant > > arguments, it's much less obvious and omitting such expressions > > might have unexpected consequences. > > query jumbling should not care about the behavior of the function. If > we take a regular call to a volatile function, we will generate the > same queryId for every call regardless of the input to the function. > Why does the in-list case need to care about the volatility of the > function? I feel quite insecure about this idea TBH. At least with immutable functions I don't expect the system to behave wildly different than with actual constants. What non-immutable functions do you have in mind that would be useful to fold as if they were constants in the IN list in such a query? In the meantime, here's v28 which is Dmitry's v27 plus pgindent. No other changes. Dmitry, were you planning to submit a new version? -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present" (Hobbes)
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: