Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb <mujeeb.sk@zohocorp.com>, ilyaevdokimov <ilya.evdokimov@tantorlabs.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, mujeebskdev <mujeeb.sk.dev@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

Date: 2025-05-29T04:53:07Z

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 →

Change internal plan ID type from uint64 to int64
- e050af28686e 18.0 landed
Change internal queryid type from uint64 to int64
- c3eda50b0648 18.0 landed
pg_stat_statements: Widen query IDs from 32 bits to 64 bits.
- cff440d36869 11.0 cited

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:01:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have added an open item about the plan ID part as it applies to v18,
> adding the RMT in CC to get an opinion.  If we cannot get a consensus
> on all that, letting things as they are is still logically correct,
> even with the -Wwarnings-format-signedness argument which is not
> included by default currently.
> 
> Has somebody an opinion to offer?

It has been one week since this last update, and there has been
nothing except the sound of cicadas.  IMO, I think that we should just
pull the switch and make both of these IDs signed on HEAD, taking case
of the potential signedness warning issues.

Now, I don't really want to take a leap of faith without the RMT being
OK with that now that we are in beta1.
--
Michael