Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks! Looks good to me. Committed!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao