On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 08:49:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm. One issue with the patch is that we finish by considering
> DEALLOCATE ALL and DEALLOCATE $1 as the same things, compiling the
> same query IDs. The difference is made in the Nodes by assigning NULL
> to the name but we would now ignore it. Wouldn't it be better to add
> an extra field to DeallocateStmt to track separately the named
> deallocate queries and ALL in monitoring?
In short, I would propose something like that, with a new boolean
field in DeallocateStmt that's part of the jumbling.
Dagfinn, Julien, what do you think about the attached?
--
Michael
