Re: On disable_cost

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: On disable_cost
Date: 2024-10-07 15:36:07
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY=txgSWsUbyHDOx_+MJGyoMy9Ht0cG_AZ1ZyPRw0rstQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 11:28 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2024-Oct-03, Robert Haas wrote:
> > One general thing to think about is that we really document very
> > little about EXPLAIN. That might not be good, but we should consider
> > whether it will look strange if we document a bunch of stuff about
> > this and still don't talk about anything else.
>
> I completely agree that we document very little about EXPLAIN. However,
> I disagree that we should continue to do so. I'd rather take the
> opportunity to _add_ more details that we currently omit, and make the
> documentation more complete. A short blurb about Disabled Nodes such as
> the one Laurenz proposed seems an excellent way to start; we can add
> more later, as people propose them. We don't have to stop here, and we
> don't have to stay at statu quo re. other points.

Sure, that all makes sense. I was just raising it as a point to consider.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-10-07 15:44:26 Re: Re: bt Scankey in another contradictory case
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-10-07 15:28:15 Re: On disable_cost