From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) |
Date: | 2009-10-15 01:44:43 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070910141844h48aaaa39o3431c441e9c7b19e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> My (limited) experience is that it's usually better to get something
>> incremental committed, even if it's not what you really want. You can
>> always take another crack at the remaining issues later, but if the
>> whole patch gets shot down then you are out of luck.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. But the partial change should also be
> a "long-term solution" ;-). It is hard to determine whether
> the partial change is a good solution until the whole features
> works as expected (at least partially).
Well, that's an indication that you've chosen too small a piece. But
I don't really believe that a change that affects only core EXPLAIN
and auto_explain is too small a piece to be independently useful. If
it is, the whole feature is probably badly conceived in the first
place...
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-15 01:45:03 | Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-10-15 01:38:53 | Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) |