Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
legrand legrand <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Julien Rouhaud wrote > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 4:11 PM legrand legrand > < > legrand_legrand@ > > wrote: >> >> Hi Julien, >> >> I would like to create a link with >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ > [email protected] >> >> where we met an ASSET FAILURE because query text was not initialized ... >> >> The question raised is: >> >> - should query text be always provided >> or >> - if not how to deal that case (in pgss). > > I'd think that since the query text was until now always provided, > there's no reason why this patch should change that. That being said, > there has been other concerns raised wrt. temporary tables in the IVM > patchset, so ISTM that there might be important architectural changes > upcoming, so having to deal with this case in pgss is not rushed > (especially since handling that in pgss would be trivial), and can > help to catch issue with the query text pasing. IVM revealed that ASSERT, but IVM works fine with pg_stat_statements.track_planning = off. There may be others parts of postgresql that would have workede fine as well. This means 2 things: - there is a (litle) risk to meet other assert failures when using planning counters in pgss, - we have an easy workarround to fix it (disabling track_planning). But I would have prefered this new feature to work the same way with or without track_planning activated ;o( -- Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html