Horton

Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

Gregory Stark (as CFM) <stark.cfm@gmail.com>

View thread
From: "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Pavel Trukhanov <pavel.trukhanov@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2023-03-14T18:14:17Z
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.

So I was seeing that this patch needs a rebase according to cfbot.

However it looks like the review feedback you're looking for is more
of design questions. What jumbling is best to include in the feature
set and which is best to add in later patches. It sounds like you've
gotten conflicting feedback from initial reviews.

It does sound like the patch is pretty mature and you're actively
responding to feedback so if you got more authoritative feedback it
might even be committable now. It's already been two years of being
rolled forward so it would be a shame to keep rolling it forward.

Or is there some fatal problem that you're trying to work around and
still haven't found the magic combination that convinces any
committers this is something we want? In which case perhaps we set
this patch returned? I don't get that impression myself though.