Why does this patch #ifdef out the _PG_fini code in pg_stat_statements?
Where you check for INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE return codes in
pgss_ProcessUtility, I think this deserves a comment explaining that
these could occur as a result of EXECUTE. It wasn't obvious to me,
anyway.
It seems to me that the current hook placement does not address this complaint
>> 1. The placement of the hook. Why is it three lines down in
>> ProcessUtility? It's probably reasonable to have the Assert first,
>> but I don't see why the hook function should have the ability to
>> editorialize on the behavior of everything about ProcessUtility
>> *except* the read-only-xact check.
...Robert