pgsql: Update pg_stat_statements extension for parallel query.
Update pg_stat_statements extension for parallel query.
All functions provided by this extension are PARALLEL SAFE. Given the
general prohibition against write operations in parallel queries, it is
perhaps a bit surprising that pg_stat_statements_reset() is parallel safe.
But since it only modifies shared memory, not the database, it's OK.
Andreas Karlsson
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/496899ccc2fd1b84bd1a8c8b3a7f0c667e5329f0
Modified Files
--------------
contrib/pg_stat_statements/Makefile | 6 +--
.../pg_stat_statements--1.3--1.4.sql | 7 ++++
.../pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements--1.3.sql | 48 ----------------------
.../pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements--1.4.sql | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++
.../pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.control | 2 +-
5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On 10/06/16 17:01, Robert Haas wrote:
Update pg_stat_statements extension for parallel query.
I couldn't readily find a review for this patch, and I am unsatisfied
with it. I think it's very strange that a 1.4 version would call a
function labeled 1.3, and when we make a 1.5 the code will look really
weird because it'll be missing a version.
Attached is my attempt to fix this. It might not be the best way to do
it, but I feel that *something* should be done.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
Attachments:
pss14.patchtext/x-patch; name=pss14.patchDownload+67-5
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
On 10/06/16 17:01, Robert Haas wrote:
Update pg_stat_statements extension for parallel query.
I couldn't readily find a review for this patch, and I am unsatisfied
with it. I think it's very strange that a 1.4 version would call a
function labeled 1.3, and when we make a 1.5 the code will look really
weird because it'll be missing a version.Attached is my attempt to fix this. It might not be the best way to do
it, but I feel that *something* should be done.
Hmm. I don't think this is solving any real problem, is it? You're
just adding backward compatibility code to the C files that doesn't
really need to be there. I don't think it's particularly confusing
that the extension version might sometimes get bumped without changing
the SRF columns.
Another problem with this change is that dropping and redefining the
view will prevent anyone who has a dependency on the view from being
able to update to the latest extension. It doesn't seem like a wise
idea to force that on users unnecessarily.
(I am sorry you are unsatisfied, though. I didn't feel a need to post
a detailed review of each of these many patches on the relevant
thread, because they are mostly pretty boilerplate.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers