| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: So why is EXPLAIN printing only *plan* time? |
| Date: | 2014-04-27 21:05:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20140427210503.GE2556@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I'd been a bit suspicious of the recent patch to add $SUBJECT
> without the other pre-execution components, but it just now
> occurred to me that there's at least one reason why this might
> be a significant omission: any delay caused by waiting to acquire
> locks on the query's tables will be spent in the parser.
[...]
> I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate to add all of these measurements
> as separate printout lines; arguably we should just fold them into
> "planning time".
>
> Thoughts?
Having a distinction between "time spent waiting on locks" (even
just "waited on locks" as a boolean) would be very nice, imv. Having
the time spent would be best, provided it doesn't add too much. As for
individual print-out lines, perhaps we should consider putting them on
the same line? Maybe:
Planning time X.Y (waiting for locks: X.Y, other stuff: X.Y).
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-27 21:10:48 | Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-27 20:55:51 | Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained |