| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making EXPLAIN extensible |
| Date: | 2025-03-20 18:24:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaTkMna7OMqP-bJ+70sVvhmc2pHZ8xa1dU6NVAWE=7Qrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 3:04 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I was confused; previously, the difficulties faced by
> extension developers were always attributed to him (refer to the
> discussion on the selectivity hook). However, now you're introducing a
> hook for a trivial operation that could simply be resolved at the end of
> execution within a per-node hook with tiny inconsistency in output. I'm
> pleased to see a change in the narrative.
It sounds like we're sufficiently in agreement so I've committed the
patch. I agree with you that this could be done within the per-node
hook, but that would be awkward, and this is better. I take note of
your frustration with the difficulty of getting hooks added and to
some extent I share it; on the flip side, there are plenty of
poorly-considered hook proposals, too.
I've rebased my pg_overexplain patch and attach that here.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v8-0001-pg_overexplain-Additional-EXPLAIN-options-for-deb.patch | application/octet-stream | 59.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-03-20 18:32:49 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2025-03-20 18:19:04 | Re: AIO v2.5 |