> I'm still digging into the details here, but what are folks' thoughts on > how critical this patch is for v19? IOW is it a big deal if we leave it > out of v19 and put it in v20? Or should the pg_stat_statements spam be a > blocker for its release?
I am not sure if I would call it a blocker. The pg_stat_statements spam will be confined to a standby, unless the MODE used is primary_flush, which ISTM will be the lesser used case. But for both cases, the workaround is to disable utility statement tracking. So, there is a workaround. This is very much similar to how lack of SAVEPOINT normalization with many unique savepoint names would cause pg_stat_statements before we fixed that. But if we go with v1-, this seems like a simple enough fix to get it, if there is still a chance to do so. -- Sami
