From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Report planning memory in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
Date: | 2023-12-17 16:27:47 |
Message-ID: | 202312171627.yad4c73mi4te@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
OK, I propose the following further minor tweaks. (I modified the docs
following the wording we have for COSTS and BUFFERS).
There are two things that still trouble me a bit. First, we assume that
the planner is using an AllocSet context, which I guess is true, but if
somebody runs the planner in a context of a different memcxt type, it's
going to be a problem. So far we don't have infrastructure for creating
a context of the same type as another context. Maybe it's too fine a
point to worry about, for sure.
The other question is about trying to support the EXPLAIN EXECUTE case.
Do you find that case really useful? In a majority of cases planning is
not going to happen because it was already done by PREPARE (where we
_don't_ report memory, because we don't have EXPLAIN there), so it seems
a bit weird. I suppose you could make it useful if you instructed the
user to set plan_cache_mode to custom, assuming that does actually work
(I didn't try).
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"El hombre nunca sabe de lo que es capaz hasta que lo intenta" (C. Dickens)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fixups.txt | text/plain | 2.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2023-12-17 16:34:10 | Re: How to get started with contribution |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-12-17 15:22:23 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings |