Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>,
Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2015-10-02T21:04:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- 0001-Fix-pg_stat_statements-garbage-collection-bugs.patch (text/x-patch) patch 0001
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> My guess is that this very large query involved a very large number of >> constants, possibly contained inside an " IN ( )". Slight variants of >> the same query, that a human would probably consider to be equivalent >> have caused artificial pressure on garbage collection. > > I could write a patch to do compaction in-place. In the end, I decided on a simpler approach to fixing this general sort of problem with the attached patch. See commit message for details. I went this way not because compaction in-place was necessarily a bad idea, but because I think that a minimal approach will work just as well in real world cases. It would be nice to get this committed before the next point releases are tagged, since I've now heard a handful of complaints like this. -- Peter Geoghegan
Commits
-
Be more wary about 32-bit integer overflow in pg_stat_statements.
- c67c2e2a2939 16.0 landed
- dd414bf4e047 10.22 landed
- 82ebc70d1c7f 15.0 landed
- 6b67db10c366 13.8 landed
- 6608a4305636 12.12 landed
- 17fd203b414e 14.5 landed
- 06f6a07ba465 11.17 landed