Re: Proposal: Progressive explain

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rafael Thofehrn Castro <rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Progressive explain
Date: 2025-03-28 20:01:55
Message-ID: CA+TgmobGZseEpTeyhzstFs6rVKaB-_CfiC7gTuvz=QhWc=aR=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 3:59 PM Rafael Thofehrn Castro
<rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > True, although thinking about it more, they're not being sent to the
> > same place. auto_explain goes to the log, and this goes to a view.
> > What about something like this:
> > progressive_explain = on | off
> > progressive_explain_inteval = 5s
>
> I'm still more inclined to use:
>
> progressive_explain = off | explain | analyze
> progressive_explain_interval = any millisecond greater than a min threshold
> (currently 10ms). It doesn't make sense to be dumping the instrumented plan
> every 1ms for example, IMHO.

I still have trouble understanding what that means. Is the interval
irrelevant except when progressive_explain = analyze?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rafael Thofehrn Castro 2025-03-28 20:04:04 Re: Proposal: Progressive explain
Previous Message Rafael Thofehrn Castro 2025-03-28 19:58:51 Re: Proposal: Progressive explain