Re: 64-bit queryId?

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> > You need to change the SQL interface as well, although I'm not sure
> > exactly how. The problem is that you are now passing a uint64 queryId
> > to Int64GetDatumFast() within pg_stat_statements_internal(). That
> > worked when queryId was a uint32, because you can easily represent
> > values <= UINT_MAX as an int64/int8. However, you cannot represent the
> > second half of the range of uint64 within a int64/int8. I think that
> > this will behave different depending on USE_FLOAT8_BYVAL, if nothing
> > else.
>
> Maybe intentionally drop the high-order bit, so that it's a 63-bit ID?
>

+1,
I see 3 options there:
1) Drop high-order bit, as you proposed.
2) Allow negative queryIds.
3) Implement unsigned 64-type.

#1 causes minor loss of precision which looks rather insignificant in given
context.
#2 might be rather unexpected for users whose previously had non-negative
queryIds.  Changing queryId from 32-bit to 64-bit itself might require some
adoption from monitoring software. But queryIds are user-visible, and
negative queryIds would look rather nonlogical.
#3 would be attaching hard and long-term problem by insufficient reason.
Thus, #1 looks like most harmless solution.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company