From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Chantal Keller <chantal(dot)keller(at)universite-paris-saclay(dot)fr> |
Subject: | Re: Improving EXPLAIN's display of SubPlan nodes |
Date: | 2024-01-22 17:07:23 |
Message-ID: | 3791430.1705943243@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> writes:
> Although something like:
> ```
> + Filter: (ANY (base_tbl.a = $1) FROM SubPlan 1 (returns $1))
> + SubPlan 1 (returns $1)
> ```
> ... arguably doesn't give much more information to the user comparing
> to what we have now:
> ```
> - Filter: (SubPlan 1)
> - SubPlan 1
> ```
Yeah, I would probably not have thought to do this on my own; but
we had an actual user request for it. I think arguably the main
benefit is to confirm "yes, this is the sub-select you think it is".
The main thing that's still missing compared to what is in the plan
data structure is information about which Param is which. I think
we have the subplan output Params relatively well covered through
the expedient of listing them in the generated plan_name, but it's
still not apparent to me how we could shoehorn subplan input
Params into this (or whether it's worth doing).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2024-01-22 17:07:27 | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-22 17:01:29 | Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay |