Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "<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 23:33:22
Message-ID: 577.1265758402@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> A more important point is that it would be a nontrivial change, both as
>> to code and documentation, and it's too late for such in 9.0. So what
>> we ought to be confining the discussion to right now is what 9.0 should
>> print here.

> It's exactly as nontrivial as the proposed change in the other direction.

Not in the least. Fixing EXPLAIN to consistently print totals would
involve changes in (at least) the treatment of estimated costs, and very
possibly some changes in the Instrumentation support as well. I notice
you blithely disregarded the documentation point, too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2010-02-09 23:57:35 Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-02-09 23:21:08 log_error_verbosity placement