Re: machine-readable explain output

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: machine-readable explain output
Date: 2009-06-15 13:51:47
Message-ID: 14381.1245073907@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm... on further review, I'm thinking this is still a bit wastful,
> because we don't really need (I think) to call
> TupleDescGetAttInMetadata from begin_tup_output_tupdesc. But I'm not
> sure what the best way is to avoid that. Any thoughts?

Er, just don't do it? We shouldn't need it if the function is doing
heap_form_tuple directly.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-06-15 14:08:58 Re: Should mdxxx functions(e.g. mdread, mdwrite, mdsync etc) PANIC instead of ERROR when I/O failed?
Previous Message Gurjeet Singh 2009-06-15 12:28:07 Re: char() overhead on read-only workloads not so insignifcant as the docs claim it is...