Re: New EXPLAIN option: ALL

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New EXPLAIN option: ALL
Date: 2019-05-15 06:02:14
Message-ID: 20190515060214.GZ28936@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:51:12AM +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:25:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > > I'm generally in favor of doing something like what Tom is suggesting
> > > with VERBOSE, but I also feel like it should be the default for formats
> > > like JSON. If you're asking for the output in JSON, then we really
> > > should include everything that a flag like VERBOSE would contain because
> > > you're pretty clearly planning to copy/paste that output into something
> > > else to read it anyway.
> >
> > Meh --- I don't especially care for non-orthogonal behaviors like that.
> > If you wanted JSON but *not* all of the additional info, how would you
> > specify that? (The implementation I had in mind would make VERBOSE OFF
> > more or less a no-op, so that wouldn't get you there.)
> >
> > >> I do feel that it's a good idea to keep ANALYZE separate. "Execute
> > >> the query or not" is a mighty fundamental thing. I've never liked
> > >> that name for the option though --- maybe we could deprecate it
> > >> in favor of EXECUTE?
> >
> > > Let's not fool ourselves by saying we'd 'deprecate' it because that
> > > implies, at least to me, that there's some intention of later on
> > > removing it
> >
> > True, the odds of ever actually removing it are small :-(. I meant
> > mostly changing all of our docs to use the other spelling, except
> > for some footnote. Maybe we could call ANALYZE a "legacy spelling"
> > of EXECUTE.
>
> I tried changing it to EXEC (EXPLAIN EXECUTE is already a thing), but
> got a giant flock of reduce-reduce conflicts along with a few
> shift-reduce conflicts.
>
> How do I fix this?

Fixed it.

I hope the patch is a little easier to digest as now attached.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Changed-EXPLAIN-ANALYZE-to-EXPLAIN-EXEC.patch text/x-diff 12.2 KB
v4-0002-Documentation.patch text/x-diff 6.6 KB
v4-0003-psql-support.patch text/x-diff 2.3 KB
v4-0004-Changed-examples-in-the-documentation-to-use-EXEC.patch text/x-diff 30.3 KB
v4-0005-Changed-code-comments-to-reflect-the-new-default-.patch text/x-diff 8.7 KB
v4-0006-Mechanical-changes-to-regression-tests-and-their-.patch text/x-diff 450.6 KB
v4-0007-Propagate-changes-to-auto_explain.patch text/x-diff 3.2 KB
v4-0008-Mechanical-changes-in-file_fdw-and-postgres_fdw.patch text/x-diff 2.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-05-15 06:44:22 Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-15 04:43:10 Re: Emacs vs pg_indent's weird indentation for function declarations