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

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> >>> We can still hope that some feedback comes in during beta.
>>
>> >> I'm not opposed to that in principal, but in practice the PGadmin
>> >> folks may not like us very much if we change things too drastically if
>> >> they've got it working the way we had it...  we'll just have to see
>> >> what reports we get, I suppose.
>>
>> > We're not planning to reimplement our existing parser for this release
>> > so it won't bother us if you want to bash about any of the new
>> > formats.
>>
>> Well, you're going to have to do more than zero work even with that
>> plan, given the changes already made to the text format.  It would be
>> really nice if we could get some feedback on the non-text formats
>> *before* they're set in stone.
>
> Is Redhat's Visual Explain still alive?  And what about Tom Raney's stuff?

The core of Tom Raney's work was not so much the EXPLAIN format per se
(which is really mooted by the changes already made in CVS) but the
ability to get information about plans the planner considered and
discarded. I am not sure whether the latter is something we want to
accept into core (not for 9.0 at any rate, I would think).

...Robert