| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
| Date: | 2009-05-26 00:03:32 |
| Message-ID: | 10589.1243296212@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Admittedly this is a bit inconvenient, but the point is that the
>> functionality does exist. There is no need to have a built-in
>> version of this function unless we get significant advantages
>> from having it built-in, and right now I'm not seeing those.
> I assume people don't want the *text* of the current output format but
> the actual values in separate columns.
Well, I notice that everyone is carefully dodging the subject of exactly
what columns they want, but my example would clearly scale easily to any
specific set of output columns that EXPLAIN might return instead of one
text column. Since we were previously told that any particular release
of PG need only offer one set of possible output columns, I figured the
problem was solved ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew McNamara | 2009-05-26 00:18:48 | Re: No sanity checking performed on binary TIME parameters. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-25 23:59:11 | Re: usability of pg_get_function_arguments |