From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |
Date: | 2010-02-09 22:03:48 |
Message-ID: | 24620.1265753028@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I already have a patch to do this but it's a bit grotty -- do we want
> to have a generic format string in snprintf in case we need it
> somewhere else other than explain.c?
No. Custom format specifiers that take arguments will confuse the heck
out of gcc's format-checking warnings. There is no way that saving
a bit of ugliness is worth that. Just do format_memory_amount(foo)
and print it with %s.
> Secondly, I think it's printing the total buffer usage for that node
> across the whole query -- not the average per iteration. I agree that
> the average is probably more confusing but it's what we do for every
> other stat. Do we want to be consistent?
Probably yes. But it strikes me that the additional numbers printed for
Sort nodes might be bogus in multiple-loop cases too; what about that?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-02-09 22:05:55 | Re: ERROR: could not load library "...": Exec format error |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-09 21:54:44 | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |