| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Étienne BERSAC <etienne(dot)bersac(at)dalibo(dot)com>, ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com, rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Date: | 2024-03-13 19:33:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaaEQtuope6za=3GSCZ+WJFT4DbF5Cnv0QXFmDnZ_PqFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:28 AM torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> - I saw no way to find the next node to be executed from the planstate
> tree, so the patch wraps all the ExecProcNode of the planstate tree at
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
I don't think it does this correctly, because some node types have
children other than the left and right node. See /* special child
plans */ in ExplainNode().
But also ... having to wrap the entire plan tree like this seems
pretty awful. I don't really like the idea of a large-scan plan
modification like this in the middle of the query. I also wonder
whether it interacts properly with JIT. But at the same time, I wonder
how you're supposed to avoid it.
Andres, did you have some clever idea for this feature that would
avoid the need to do this?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-03-13 19:55:25 | Re: un-revert the MAINTAIN privilege and the pg_maintain predefined role |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-13 19:18:11 | Re: Add system identifier to backup manifest |