From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More WITH |
Date: | 2015-08-17 21:41:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZPkoScveg55HVF=FfcJertBGmG3szi34kGDXQy-qBy6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Would be tricky. We don't currently have any way to wrap an EXPLAIN in
>>> any larger statement, do we? Would be very useful for automated query
>>> analysis, though.
>
>> No. In the grammar, ExplainStmt expects the EXPLAIN to be at the
>> top-level. Having it work any other way would require significant
>> refactoring.
>
> You can use EXPLAIN as the source of rows in a plpgsql FOR-over-query
> loop, so there's a workaround available that way when you need to read
> EXPLAIN output programmatically. I'm not convinced there's sufficient
> value in trying to make EXPLAIN a full-fledged subquery otherwise.
I think a lot of people would find that handy - I would - but I don't
know how hard it is.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-17 21:46:35 | Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-08-17 21:41:09 | Re: Potential GIN vacuum bug |