On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:30:53AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> I agree. If those numbers are indeed representable, it seems like
> better to pay that overhead than to pay the overhead of trying to
> de-dupe it.
>
> Let's hope they are :)
:)
> Looking through ti again my feeling said the toplevel column should go
> after the queryid and not before, but I'm not going to open up a
> bikeshed over that.
>
> I've added in a comment to cover that one that you removed (if you did
> send an updated patch as you said, then I missed it -- sorry), and
> applied the rest.
Oops, somehow I totally forgot to send the new patch, sorry :(
While looking at the patch, I unfortunately just realize that I unnecessarily
bumped the version to 1.10, as 1.9 was already new as of pg14. Honestly I have
no idea why I used 1.10 at that time. Version numbers are not a scarce
resource but maybe it would be better to keep 1.10 for a future major postgres
version?
If yes, PFA a patch to merge 1.10 in 1.9.