Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 10 April 2012 23:07, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 04/10/2012 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I am doing more sophisticated things with it, so I'll celebrate this as my
>> opportunity to say I did something you didn't see coming for 2012.
> This is why I requested that we expose the query_id hash value - I
> believe that it will be generally useful in clustering situations. It
> would be nice to have a persistent identifier. While we're discussing
> revising pg_stat_statement's interface, are you still opposed to
> exposing that value, Tom?
I still am. I'm unconvinced by references to "clustering situations",
because as constructed the hash is extremely database-specific.
It will vary depending on OID assignments, not to mention platform
characteristics such as word width and endianness.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
