Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
Дата
Msg-id CAM3SWZR=TTnitUjEwbeKbr4x0O5oLZkyLrtFttOhnsKM1yTcmQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There seems to be no problem even if we use bigint as the type of
>> unsigned 32-bit integer like queryid. For example, txid_current()
>> returns the transaction ID, i.e., unsigned 32-bit integer, as bigint.
>> Could you tell me what the problem is when using bigint for queryid?
>
> We're talking about the output of some view, right, not internal storage?
> +1 for using bigint for that.  Using OID is definitely an abuse, because
> the value *isn't* an OID.  And besides, what if we someday decide we need
> 64-bit keys not 32-bit?

Fair enough. I was concerned about the cost of external storage of
64-bit integers (unlike query text, they might have to be stored many
times for many distinct intervals or something like that), but in
hindsight that was fairly miserly of me.

Attached revision displays signed 64-bit integers instead.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Gierth
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Следующее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch