From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 22:42:45 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071002091442v19fb49d9k8f237a4edc627b9c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Well, if you want to put forward a proposal to get rid of that approach
>>> entirely, go ahead. But it doesn't seem like a good idea to me for
>>> EXPLAIN to print some numbers according to one viewpoint and some
>>> according to the other.
>
>> Well, if I propose that we just abandon that approach and print only
>> totals for everything, is that DOA? I think it would be a major
>> improvement, but it will break backward compatibility.
>
> Well, I'm not for changing it, but I might be in the minority.
>
> 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.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-02-09 22:49:07 | Re: Writeable CTEs and empty relations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 22:41:43 | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |