Horton

Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel.trukhanov@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-02-05T16:02:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Introduce squashing of constant lists in query jumbling

  2. Make documentation builds reproducible

  3. Include values of A_Const nodes in query jumbling

  4. Teach planner about more monotonic window functions

  5. Split up guc.c for better build speed and ease of maintenance.

Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm thinking about this in the following way: the core jumbling logic is
> responsible for deriving locations based on the input expressions; in
> the case of merging we produce less locations; pgss have to represent
> the result only using locations and has to be able to differentiate
> simple locations and locations after merging.

Uh ... why?  ISTM you're just going to elide all inside the IN,
so why do you need more than a start and stop position?

			regards, tom lane