| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. |
| Date: | 2014-04-16 23:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | 18488.1397691358@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Where are we on this? I still see:
> test=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 1;
> QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=1)
> Planning time: 0.009 ms
> --> Total runtime: 0.009 ms
> (3 rows)
There seemed to be a clear majority of votes in favor of changing it to
say "Execution time". Robert was arguing for no change, but I don't think
that's tenable in view of the fact that the addition of the "Planning
time" line is already a change, and one that makes the old wording
confusing.
I'll go change it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 23:46:56 | pgsql: libpq: use pgsocket for socket values, for portability |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 23:24:40 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 23:38:53 | Re: Minor performance improvement in transition to external sort |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 23:33:52 | Re: slow startup due to LWLockAssign() spinlock |