> > >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 6:28 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2025-Mar-25, Tom Lane wrote: > If this GUC sticks around, it should be at least PGC_SUSET (on > the analogy of compute_query_id) to make it harder to break > pg_stat_statements that way. I have no problem making it superuser-only, and I can see making "on" be the default. I am not opposed to removing it completely either, if we really think that the current behavior is no longer useful for anybody. I'm in favor of removing the GUC of course, but if memory serves there were some folks in the patch discussion thread, who claimed they would need to be able to keep non-squashed behavior. I don't recall if there were particular arguments to support that, will try to find those messages again. But overall as long as nobody objects, I think it's fine to get rid of GUC. Earlier in the discussion, other possible values for the option were suggested, such as a way to distinguish arrays that had "lots" (say, hundreds or more) of entries from arrays that were "small". That could be selected by the user (or site admin) using this GUC, though there was no agreement on exactly what that would be. During the FOSDEM 2024 development meeting there was a general dislike of this idea, which AFAIR was mostly predicated on the displayed query no longer being valid SQL. But now that we've chosen a format that uses SQL comments, this is no longer a problem, so I think we haven't closed that door yet. But we may still find out that no user cares about this. Agree, the way how things work now brings this option back on the table. I can refresh the patch doing this, but I'm afk for about a week so it will take some time. At the same time the proposal to do squashing by default does not seem to be strictly dependent on that, so maybe they could be considered as isolated ideas. >
