Horton

Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, yasuo.honda@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, smithpb2250@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, nathandbossart@gmail.com, stark.cfm@gmail.com, geidav.pg@gmail.com, marcos@f10.com.br, robertmhaas@gmail.com, david@pgmasters.net, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pavel.trukhanov@gmail.com, Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>
Date: 2025-02-14T09:57:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:36:48AM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Feb-14, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> 
> > Since the merging is a yes/no option (I think there used to be some discussions
> > about having a threshold or some other fancy modes), maybe you could instead
> > differentiate the merged version by have 2 constants rather than this "..." or
> > something like that?
> 
> Maybe the representation can be "($1 /*, ... */)" so that it's obvious
> that the array extends beyond the first element but is still
> syntactically valid.

Yeah that works too and it's probably way easier to implement.