On 2021/05/11 15:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:37:45AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2021-04-26 14:21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> That's sounding like a pretty sane design, actually. Not sure about
>>>> the shared-library-name-with-fixed-function-name detail, but certainly
>>>> it seems to be useful to separate "I need a query-id" from the details
>>>> of the ID calculation.
>>>>
>>>> Rather than a GUC per se for the ID provider, maybe we could have a
>>>> function hook that defaults to pointing at the in-core computation,
>>>> and then a module wanting to override that just gets into the hook.
>>>
>>> I have a preference to determining the provider via GUC instead of a
>>> hook because it is both easier to introspect and easier to configure.
>
> So, this thread has died two weeks ago, and it is still an open item.
> Could it be possible to move to a resolution by beta1? The consensus
> I can get from the thread is that we should have a tri-value state to
> track an extra "auto" for the query ID computation, as proposed by
> Alvaro here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210426174331.GA19401@alvherre.pgsql
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION