Horton

Re: 64-bit queryId?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-03T16:06:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> BTW, you didn't comment Tom's suggestion about dropping high-order bit which
> trades minor user user confusion to minor loss of precision.

Oh, I thought I did comment on that.  I favor allowing negative IDs
rather than minor loss of precision.

> TBH, for me it's not so important whether we allow negative queryIds or drop
> high-order bit.  I would be anyway very good to have 64-(or 63-)bit queryIds
> committed.

Great.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. pg_stat_statements: Add a comment about the dangers of padding bytes.

  2. pg_stat_statements: Widen query IDs from 32 bits to 64 bits.