| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) |
| Date: | 2014-10-16 14:43:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZDjOQx3izVBG2rBc-Eo-8KwzyLpLfSs2uB3=nU9_g+2w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hmm, was my case above not compelling enough?
>
>> Apparently not to Tom, but it made sense to me.
>
> No, it wasn't. I'm not convinced either that that patch will get in at
> all, or that it has to have regression tests of that particular form,
> or that such a switch would be sufficient to make such tests platform
> independent.
People clearly want to be able to run EXPLAIN (ANALYZE) and get stable
output. If the proposed change isn't enough to make that happen, we
need to do more, not give up. Regardless of what happens to inner
join removal.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2014-10-16 14:53:59 | Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-16 14:34:21 | Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) |