Horton

Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

Yasuo Honda <yasuo.honda@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Yasuo Honda <yasuo.honda@gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>, David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel.trukhanov@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-03-26T23:56:12Z
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.

Thanks for the useful info.

Ruby on Rails uses bigint as a default data type for the primary key
and prepared statements have been enabled by default for PostgreSQL.
I'm looking forward to these current patches being merged as a first
step and future versions of pg_stat_statements will support
normalizing bigint and prepared statements.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:00 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's a similar case: the column is defined as bigint, thus PostgreSQL
> has to wrap every constant expression in a function expression that
> converts its type to bigint. The current patch version doesn't try to
> reduce a FuncExpr into Const (event if the wrapped value is a Const),
> thus this array is not getting merged. If you replace bigint with an
> int, no type conversion would be required and merging logic will kick
> in.
>
> Again, the original version of the patch was able to handle this case,
> but it was stripped away to make the patch smaller in hope of moving
> forward. Anyway, thanks for reminding about how annoying the current
> handling of constant arrays can look like in practice!