| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |
| Date: | 2009-12-14 14:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | 28694.1260801646@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Pushing extra arguments around would create overhead of its own ...
>> overhead that would be paid even when not using EXPLAIN at all.
> I cannot understand what you mean... The additional argument should
> not be a performance overhead because the code path is run only once
> per execution.
Hmm, maybe, but still: once you have two flags you're likely to need
more. I concur with turning doInstrument into a bitmask as per Robert's
suggestion downthread.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 14:47:23 | Re: thread safety on clients |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 14:33:52 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |