On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 02:29:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > There's a ridiculously simple option here which is: drop the idea that > > we support an extension redefining the query id and then just make it > > on/off with the default to be 'on'. > > I do not think that defaulting it to 'on' is acceptable unless you can > show that the added overhead is negligible. IIUC the measurements that > have been done show the opposite.
Agreed. > Maybe we should revert this thing pending somebody doing the work to > make a version of queryid labeling that actually is negligibly cheap. > It certainly seems like that could be done; one more traversal of the > parse tree can't be that expensive in itself. I suspect that the > performance problem is with the particular hashing mechanism that > was used, which looks mighty ad-hoc anyway. I was surprised it was ~2%. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
